LAXMIKANT & ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 3 S.C.R. 297 · Decided: 23-03-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
297
   [2022] 3 S.C.R. 297
297
LAXMIKANT & ORS.
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1965 of 2022)
MARCH 23, 2022
[HEMANT GUPTA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 – s.126
– Land reserved for public purpose in 2002 – After expiry of ten
years, land owners served notice calling upon the respondents to
acquire the land but still the land was not acquired – Land owners
filed writ petition before High Court seeking direction to respondent
to treat their land as released from the development plan and that
reservation for playground be declared to have lapsed to the extent
of the land owned by them – High Court held that the reservation of
land in the development plan stood lapsed as no declaration under
s.126 was published, however, the Planning Authority was given
one year time to acquire the land reserved – Instant appeal filed by
land owners against the restriction of one year put by High Court
giving additional time to respondents to acquire the land – Held:
Once an embargo has been put on a land owner not to use the land
in a particular manner, the said restriction cannot be kept open-
ended for indefinite period – The Statute has provided a period of
ten years to acquire the land under s.126 of the Act – Additional
one year is granted to the land owner to serve a notice for acquisition
prior to the amendment by Maharashtra Act No. 42 of 2015 – Such
time-line is sacrosanct and has to be adhered to by the State or by
the Authorities under the State – The State or its functionaries cannot
be directed to acquire the land as the acquisition is on its satisfaction
that the land is required for a public purpose – If the State was
inactive for long number of years, the Courts would not issue
direction for acquisition of land, which is exercise of power of the
State to invoke its rights of eminent domain – In view thereof,
direction to acquire land within a period of one year is in fact
contravening the time-line fixed under the Statute – Consequently,
direction to acquire the land within one year is set aside – Land
acquisition.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
298
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: Once the Act does not contemplate any further
period for acquisition, the Court cannot grant additional period
for acquisition of land. The land was reserved for a public purpose
way back in 2002. By such reservation, the land owner could not
use the land for any other purpose for ten years. After the expiry
of ten years, the land owner had served a notice calling upon the
respondents to acquire the land but still the land was not acquired.
The land owner cannot be deprived of the use of the land for
years together. Once an embargo has been put on a land owner
not to use the land in a particular manner, the said restriction
cannot be kept open-ended for indefinite period. The Statute has
provided a period of ten years to acquire the land under Section
126 of the Act. Additional one year is granted to the land owner
to serve a notice for acquisition prior to the amendment by
Maharashtra Act No. 42 of 2015. Such time line is sacrosanct and
has to be adhered to by the State or by the Authorities under the
State. The State or its functionaries cannot be directed to acquire
the land as the acquisition is on its satisfaction that the land is
required for a public purpose. If the State was inactive for long
number of years, the Courts would not issue direction for
acquisition of land, which is exercise of power of the State to
invoke its rights of eminent domain. In view thereof, the direction
to acquire land within a period of one year is in fact contravening
the time line fixed under the Statute. [Paras 7, 8, 9][301-B-F]
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. v.
Hiraman Sitaram Deorukhar& Ors. (2019) 14 SCC
411; Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa & Ors.
(1991) 4 SCC 54 : [1991] 3 SCR 102 – referred to. 
Case Law Reference
(2019) 14 SCC 411
referred to
Para 1
[1991] 3 SCR 102 
referred to
Para 5
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.1965
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.08.2021 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.6266
of 2019.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
299
Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, Rana Sandeep Bussa, Gagandeep
Sharma, Omkar J. Deshpande, Ms. Ruchi Rathi, Advs. for the Appellants.
Aniruddha Joshi, Rahul Chitnis, Sachin Patil, Aaditya A. Pande,
Geo Joseph, Ms. Shwetal Sh

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.