Bombay High Court
Tukaram Baban Chaudhary And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary … on 20 June, 2025
Author: A. S. Gadkari
Bench: A. S. Gadkari
2025:BHC-AS:24476-DB
sns 20-aswp-2581-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2581 OF 2025
1. Tukaram Baban Chaudhary, ]
Age 63, Occ. Agri. ]
2. Bajirao Baban Chaudhari, ]
Aged about 61 years, Occ. Agri. ]
3. Sahebrao Baban Chaudhari, ]
Aged about 48 years, Occ. Agri. ]
4. Rajubai Trambak Kasar, ]
Aged about 55 years, Occ. Agri. ]
All R/o Pathardi, Tq. & Dist. Nashik. ] ...Petitioners
V/s
1. State of Maharashtra ]
Through its secretary Ministry of Urban ]
Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. ]
2. Nasik Municipal Corporation ]
Through its commissioner N.M.C. Office, ]
Rajiv Gandhi Tilak wadi ]
Saharanpur roadk-422 002. ]
3. The Commissioner, ]
Municipal Corporation Nasik N.M.C. ]
Office, Rajiv Gandhi Tilak wadi, ]
Saharanpur Road Nasik-422002. ]
4. Deputy Director of Town Planning ]
Municipal Corporation Nasik N.M.C. ]
Office, Rajiv Gandhi Tilak wadi, ]
Saharanpur Road Nasik-422002. ] ...Respondents.
Ms Pushpa Ganediwala, with Anshu Agrawal, Ankit R Rathod I/by
Ms.Pushpa Ganediwala & Co. for the Petitioners.
Digitally
signed by
SUMEDH
SUMEDH NAMDEO
NAMDEO SONAWANE
SONAWANE Date:
1/11
2025.06.20
19:59:02
+0530
::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2025 03:16:47 :::
sns 20-aswp-2581-2025.doc
Ms. Leena Patil, 'B' Panel Advocate for Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. M.L. Patil for Respondent Nos.2 to 4.
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 6th May, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 20th June, 2025.
Judgment (Per : Kamal Khata, J) :-
1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith heard finally at the
admission stage by consent of counsel.
2) Ms. Ganediwala, learned counsel for the Petitioners, at the
outset submitted that, the facts of the present Petition are identical to the
facts of Writ Petition No.9704 of 2024 and the Order passed therein is
annexed at Exhibit-A to the Petition. She submits that, similar Orders can be
passed in the present matter.
3) Mr. Patil learned Advocate for the Respondent fairly concedes
to this fact.
4) In view of the aforesaid submission and fair response, we
reiterate the Order passed in Writ Petition No.9704 of 2024 by substituting
the description of Petitioner’s property in the present case.
5) The Petitioners seek a declaration that the old Reservation No.
17 as ‘Garden’ on their land has lapsed by operation of Section 127 of the
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act 1966 (“MRTP Act”) and,
2/11
::: Uploaded on – 21/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 22/06/2025 03:16:47 :::
sns 20-aswp-2581-2025.docconsequently, a direction for the release of their land to them for
development as permissible in law.
6) In the case of Shivgonda Anna Patil v Sangli Miraj and Kupwad
City Municipal Corporation1 decided by us, we referred to a judgment in the
case of Uday Madhavrao Patwardhan & Ors vs. Sangli Miraj Kupwada City
Municipal Corporation, Sangli & Ors2 where it was held that there is no
need for the owner to seek a declaration of the lapsing of reservation from
the Court. The relevant paragraph 16 read thus:
“16. … After service of a valid notice under section 127 to
either the Appropriate Authority or the Planning Authority,
as the case may be, if steps as contemplated by section 127
are not taken within the period stipulated in the section the
reservation shall be deemed to have lapsed and the land in
respect of which the notice is issued shall be deemed to be
released from the reservation. Thus, by operation of law the
land stands released from the reservation and the Planning
Authority or Appropriate Authority cannot treat the land as
reserved. In fact there is no need for the owner to seek a
declaration from the court of law on the basis of notice
under section 127. The effect of lapsing of reservation on
the basis of the notice is automatic…..”
(Emphasis added)
1
2023:BHC-AS:29348-DB
2
(2015) SCC OnLine Bom 659.
3/11
::: Uploaded on – 21/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 22/06/2025 03:16:47 :::
sns 20-aswp-2581-2025.doc 7) The law is abundantly clear. However, this Petition appears to have been filed out of abundant caution. 8) The Petitioners own a part and parcel of land admeasuring
1.09 HR of Survey No. 201/2 situated within the limits of village Pathardi,
Tq & District Nasik (“said land”). The said land has been sub-divided in 3
parts namely Survey Nos. 201/1 admeasures 1.10 HR, Survey No. 201/2
admeasures 1.9 HR and Survey No. 201/3 admeasures 2.28 HR. The
Petitioners are concerned with Survey No. 201/2 and the other two belong
to Mr. Kalu Popat Chaudhary and Mr. Sampat Keru Chaudhary. The sub-
division of lands in 2 parts amongst the Petitioners in the 7/12 extract is at
Annexure “C and C1” to this Petition.
9) The factual narrative is thus. 10) The said land was under reservation by Nasik Municipal
Corporation (‘NMC’) under the Government Notification No. TPS-
1193/2124/CR-126/95/UD-9 dated 10th February 1996 for “Garden” and
construction of “DP Road”. This notification was confirmed by another
Government Notification No. TPS-1116/ C.R.No.140(B)2016/UD-9 by the
Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai on 9 th January 2017.
Thus, the said land’s new reservation No. is 329 for “Garden”.
11) There is no dispute that the said land has been reserved for
“Garden” and “DP Road” for more than 10 years and that no steps have
4/11
::: Uploaded on – 21/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 22/06/2025 03:16:47 :::
sns 20-aswp-2581-2025.doc
been taken for acquisition by either any agreement or by publication of
declaration as contemplated under Section 126 of the MRTP Act.
12) On 25th May 2011, the Petitioners issued and served a purchase
notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act., upon the Respondent Nos 2 to
4. On 7th June 2011, the Assistant Director Town Planning called upon the
Petitioners to submit certain documents. In response thereto, on 22 th June
2011 the Petitioners submitted the documents and the explanations sought
for from the Petitioners and communicated rejection of TDR offered by the
NMC.
13) There has been no communication since 7th June 2011 by the
Respondent Corporation. In these circumstances, the Petitioners seek that
the Petition be made absolute.
14) Mr. Patil for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 admitted that,
pursuant to the purchase notice, the Assistant Director of Town Planning
called upon the Petitioners to submit documents and a response was
received by them. He submitted that on 24 th November 2011 the standing
committee passed a resolution approving the proposal for acquisition of all
the said lands. He submitted that the Assistant Director of town planning by
the letter dated 3rd August 2011 stated that no TDR/FSI was given in
respect of the said lands. He fairly submitted that the proposal for joint
measurement of the lands was pending before the City Survey Officer
5/11
::: Uploaded on – 21/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 22/06/2025 03:16:47 :::
sns 20-aswp-2581-2025.doc
(“CSO”). The CSO on 13th June 2014 had issued a letter informing that the
measurement of the land would be taken on 5 th July 2014. On 16th
September 2014, Mr. Patil submits that, the deputy collector land
acquisition to Nasik wrote a letter to the CSO requesting him to submit a
joint measurement map. He thus submitted that although the proposal for
acquisition was submitted on 22 nd November 2011 still the joint
measurement map has not been submitted and hence the declaration under
Section 19 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 has not been issued
and further steps of acquisition could not be taken.
15) Mr. Patil submits that, presently the said lands continue to be
under reservation for the purpose of “Garden” under reservation No. 329 in
the Revised Development Plan that was sanctioned in the year 2017. He
submits that the Corporation does require the lands for public purpose of
“Garden” as well as “DP Road” and is even today willing to give the
DRC/TDR to the Petitioners for the land admeasuring 10,900 sq mts. At the
same time, Mr. Patil submits that, the Corporation is going through financial
difficulties since there are several pending acquisition proposals and large
amounts are needed to complete the pending/completed acquisitions. In
these circumstances, he urged that the Petition be dismissed.
6/11
::: Uploaded on – 21/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 22/06/2025 03:16:47 :::
sns 20-aswp-2581-2025.doc 16) This issue is no longer res integra. In the case of Shivgonda
Anna Patil vs Sangli Miraj and Kupwad City, 3 referring to the cases of
Balkrishna Jagannath Lad vs Indian Postal Department & Ors, 4 Babanrao
Dattu vs State of Maharashtra,5 Bhavnagar University vs Palitana Sugar Mill
(P) Ltd,6 we took the view that once reservation lapses in terms of Section
127 of the MRTP Act, just because, subsequently, there is a Revised
Development Plan or Final Revised Development Plan, that does not
automatically revive the lapsed reservation.
17) Referring to Girnar Traders vs State of Maharashtra, 7 we held
that lands cannot lie locked under reservation indefinitely. The underlying
principle is that the land given must be utilized for the purpose for which it
is reserved in the plan and if not done the owner must be allowed to utilize
the land as permissible under the town planning law. We held that a failure
of the authorities to take steps which result in the actual commencement of
acquisition of land cannot be permitted to defeat the purpose and object of
the scheme of acquisition under the MRTP Act.
18) It would be worthwhile extracting the relevant paragraphs of
the case of Shivgonda Anna Patil vs Sangli Miraj (supra) where we held as
under:
3
Writ Petition No. 7962 of 2023 dated 4th October 2023 :2023:BHC-AS:29348-DB
4
2015 SCC OnLine Bom 4737 : 2015 5 MhLJ 899.
5
2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1590.
6
(2003) 2 SCC 111.
7
(2007) 7 SCC 555.
7/11
::: Uploaded on – 21/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 22/06/2025 03:16:47 :::
sns 20-aswp-2581-2025.doc
“8. In the case of Balkrishna Jagannath Lad, and referred
to in case of Babanrao Dattu Versus State of Maharashtra,
a bench of coordinate strength of this court, relying upon
the case of Bhavnagar University Versus Palitana Sugar
Mill (P) Ltd, has taken the view that once the reservation
lapses in terms of Section 127 of the MRTP Act, just
because there is a revised development plan or final
revised development plan, the lapsing of the reservation
does automatically revive.
9. In Girnar Traders Versus State of Maharashtra, the
Supreme Court observed that the legislative intent of the
provisions under Sections 126 and 127 of the MRTP is to
expeditiously acquire the land reserved under the Town
Planning Scheme. Section 127 not only permits inaction for
a period of 10 years but gives a further time to either
‘acquire the land’ or ‘take steps for acquisition”, not just
steps which may lead to acquisition. Lands cannot lie
locked under ‘reservation’ indefinitely. The underlying
principle is that the land must, in a given time, be utilized
for the purpose for which it is reserved in the plan, or, if
not done, the owner must be allowed to utilise the land as
permissible under the town planning law. A failure of
authorities to take steps which result in the actual
commencement of acquisition of land cannot be permitted
to defeat the purpose and object of the scheme of
acquisition under the MRTP Act by merely moving an
application requesting the Government to acquire the land,
which Government may or may not accept.
8/11
::: Uploaded on – 21/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 22/06/2025 03:16:47 :::
sns 20-aswp-2581-2025.doc
10. Further, the Division Bench of this Court in case of
Ramakant Vasudeo Pai and later in Trilok Singh Pahlajsing
Rajpal and Ors Versus MCGM & Ors, after adverting to
various judgments held that the steps towards acquisition
would really commence when the State Government
permits the acquisition and as a result thereof publishes a
declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act
1894 or Section 19 of The Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013. It is a Section 6 declaration under
the 1894 Act (or a Section 19 declaration under the 2013
Act) which would commence the acquisition proceedings
under the MRTP Act and would culminate in the passing of
an award under Section 126(3) of the MRTP Act. Unless
and until a Section 6 /Section 19 declaration is issued, it
cannot be said that the steps for acquisition have
commenced.”
(Emphasis added)
19) As can be seen from the factual matrix narrated by the
Petitioners, no steps as contemplated in law (narrated above) have been
taken by the NMC in this case. The principles of law laid down by the Apex
Court and this Court apply to the facts of this case. We are bound by the
said Judgments, which fully support the Petitioners case.
20) Thus, in view of the aforesaid settled law, and upon applying
such law to the undisputed facts in this case, the Petition is allowed in
terms of prayer clauses (A) and (B) which read thus:
“A. Issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
direction or order thereby holding and declaring that, the9/11
::: Uploaded on – 21/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 22/06/2025 03:16:47 :::
sns 20-aswp-2581-2025.docland of the petitioners designated/ specified/ reserved for
the garden under the old reservation no.17 admeasuring
10900 Sq.mtrs. Situated at Survey No.201/2 and new
Reservation number 329 of village Pathardi, Tq. & District
Nasik (said land) have lapsed as per the provisions of
section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town
Planning Act 1966 and further that the land of the
petitioners are release from the said reservation, allotment
or designation and have become available to the owner i.e.
petitioners for the purpose of development as otherwise,
permissible in law;
B. Issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
direction or order directing respondent State of
Maharashtra to forthwith notify the lapsing reservation of
said land by an order / notification published in the official
gazette as required under section 127 (2) of the
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966;
within 45 days from the order of the Court.”
21) The State Government is directed to notify the lapsing of the
reservation by an order to be published in the Official Gazette as per the
requirement of Section 127 (2) of the MRTP Act. This shall be done as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from the date of
uploading of this Judgment on the official website of the High Court of
Bombay.
22) If the Petitioners submit any applications for development
permissions, they must be considered expeditiously and, in any event, not
10/11
::: Uploaded on – 21/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 22/06/2025 03:16:47 :::
sns 20-aswp-2581-2025.doc
later than within one year of their submission.
23) The rule is made absolute and this Petition is disposed of with
No order as to costs.
24) All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this
Judgment.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.) 11/11 ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2025 03:16:47 :::
[ad_1]
Source link