Revised development plan sanctioned before expiry of statutory notice period prevents deemed lapsing of reservation.

The Petitioner owns 18 acres of land in Phaltan, Satara.

The land was reserved for a Regional Transport Office (RTO) under the 2nd Revised Development Plan effective December 18, 1992.

Although the ten-year period for acquisition ended in 2002, the Petitioner did not issue a purchase notice at that time.

On September 10, 2010, the Planning Authority declared its intention to prepare the 3rd Revised Development Plan.

The Petitioner purchased the land in 2012 and eventually served a purchase notice under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act on November 17, 2015.

While the 24-month statutory period for the authority to act on the notice was still running (set to expire on November 16, 2017), the State Government sanctioned the 3rd Revised Development Plan on May 23, 2016, maintaining the RTO reservation.

The Petitioner sought a declaration that the reservation had lapsed because the 24-month period from the notice had since expired.

1. Whether the sanction of a revised development plan, imposing a fresh reservation after the service of a purchase notice but before the expiry of the prescribed 24-month period, continues the reservation for a further period of ten years?

2. Whether the mere service of a purchase notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act creates a vested right in the landowner to seek lapsing of reservation?

The court applied Sections 38 and 127 of the MRTP Act, 1966.

Section 38 mandates the revision of development plans at least once every 20 years.

Section 127 provides for the "deemed lapsing" of reservations if the authority fails to initiate acquisition within 24 months of a purchase notice.

The court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Prafulla C. Dave v. Municipal Commissioner, which established that a revised plan under Section 38 resets the ten-year clock for reservations if the landowner has remained inactive or if the notice period has not matured.

Furthermore, the Full Bench decision in Vishwas Bajirao Patil v. State of Maharashtra was applied, holding that no vested right is created upon the mere service of a notice; the right only vests upon the actual expiry of the statutory notice period.

The Court reasoned that the right to "lapsing" under Section 127 is not an immediate right but a contingent claim that only matures into a vested right after the cumulative satisfaction of three conditions: (i) ten years pass from the plan's inception without acquisition, (ii) a valid purchase notice is served, and (iii) the 24-month statutory window for the authority to act expires without steps for acquisition being taken.

In this case, although the Petitioner served a notice, the State exercised its statutory prerogative under Section 38 to sanction a Revised Development Plan on May 23, 2016.

Because this sanction occurred prior to the expiry of the 24-month notice period (November 16, 2017), the "deemed lapsing" never occurred.

The Court emphasized that Section 38 cannot be rendered nugatory; a timely revision of the plan "interdicts" the notice, giving the reservation a fresh lease of life for another ten years.

The Court further clarified that the decisions in Salim Nizam Sanadi and Amuksidha Shrikant Majge correctly interpreted this interplay, whereas contrary views failed to account for the lack of vested rights during the notice period.

The Petitioner’s notice was superseded by the finalization of the 3rd Revised Development Plan and consequently, no right to lapsing vested in the Petitioner.

The Court dismissed the Writ Petition and discharged the Rule.