Under the MRTP Act, Section 49(2) applications are unnecessary for notices under Sections 49(1)(a) or (e).

The Petitioner owned land bearing Bhumapan No. 107/B at Village Vadgaon, admeasuring 2.10 hectares.

A portion measuring 12,290 sq. metres was reserved as “Reservation No. 40—Garden” in the Draft Development Plan published by Vadgaon Nagar Panchayat under Section 26 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (“MRTP Act”).

The Petitioner objected to the reservation and served a Purchase Notice dated 15 March 2024 under Sections 49(1)(a) and 49(1)(e) of the MRTP Act, claiming, inter alia, that the designation rendered the land incapable of normal sale except at a lower price.

Respondent No. 3 rejected the Purchase Notice on 9 September 2024 on the ground that it was not accompanied by an application, order, or decision contemplated by Section 49(2).

The Petitioner challenged that rejection under Article 226 of the Constitution.

1. Whether a Purchase Notice issued under Sections 49(1)(a) and 49(1)(e) of the MRTP Act is liable to be rejected merely because it is not accompanied by an application made to the Planning Authority, or an order or decision thereon, under Section 49(2).

2. Whether the rejection of the Petitioner’s Purchase Notice dated 15 March 2024 on that ground was legally sustainable.

Section 49(1) of the MRTP Act enables an owner or person affected to serve a Purchase Notice where, inter alia, land is designated for compulsory acquisition under clause (a), or where its designation or allocation prevents its sale except at a lower price under clause (e).

Section 49(2), requiring the Purchase Notice to be accompanied by copies of applications and orders or decisions of the Planning Authority or State Government, applies where such an application and decision exist, particularly in cases concerning refusal or conditional grant of development permission under Section 49(1)(d).

In Aone Land Developers v. State of Maharashtra, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 9845, the Court held that the contingencies under Section 49(1) are independent and that Section 49(2) cannot be made applicable to every Purchase Notice.

The same principle was followed in Gopal Kashinath Lad v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 4661 of 2021, order dated 1 July 2022.

The Court held that the contingencies under Section 49(1)(a) and Section 49(1)(e) are independent of the contingency concerning refusal or conditional grant of development permission.

Section 49(2) requires supporting applications and orders only where such proceedings before the Planning Authority have actually occurred; it does not impose a universal requirement that every Purchase Notice must be accompanied by a development-permission application.

Since the Petitioner’s notice was based on the land’s reservation for a garden and the resulting inability to sell it at its reasonably expected value, it fell within Sections 49(1)(a) and 49(1)(e), neither of which required a prior application to the Planning Authority under Section 49(2).

Accordingly, Respondent No. 3 misread Section 49(2) in rejecting the notice solely for want of such an application.

Respondent No. 3 was directed to decide the Purchase Notice dated 15 March 2024 under Sections 49(1)(a) and 49(1)(e) on its merits, without insisting upon an application under Section 49(2), within six weeks from the uploading of the judgment.

The Rule was made absolute, with no order as to costs.