MOHANDAS AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2020] 3 S.C.R. 472 · Decided: 29-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
472
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
[2020] 3 S.C.R. 472
472
MOHANDAS AND OTHERS
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 831 of 2020)
JANUARY 29, 2020
[MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND
K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 – Scheme
of the Act – ss.38, 49, 126(4) & 127 – Appellants are the owners of
different plots of land – Development Plan was issued under the
1966 Act and the entire land owned by the appellants was reserved
for construction of shopping complex – However, no steps were
taken by first and fourth respondent (Municipal Council, Gondia)
– Plan was enforced from 1984 – Erstwhile owners of the property
issued notice dtd. 09.06.04 u/s.127 to fourth respondent for initiating
necessary steps to acquire the land – Revised Draft Plan showed
that the appellants’ property was reserved for shopping complex
and vegetable market – Objected by appellants – Final Development
Plan also showed appellants’ property as reserved for shopping
complex and vegetable market – Writ Petition filed inter alia for
quashing the Final Development Plan – Dismissed by High Court –
On appeal, held: Final Development Plan in this case came into
force on 24.08.84 – Draft Revised Plan was issued on 24.09.07 –
Final Revised Development Plan was issued w.e.f 15.05.12 – Right
would accrue to the owner u/s.127 to serve notice thereunder only
if a declaration is not published within ten years of the Development
Plan u/s.126(4), inter alia – Final Development Plan came into force
on 24.08.84 and there was declaration/notification u/s.126(4) on
03.09.92 – This means, within ten years from 24.08.84, there is
action, as contemplated u/s.126(4) – Therefore, any notice which
was given u/s.127 may not hold good going by the letter of the law
– Further, lapsing of reservation contemplated u/s.127 will occur
only if the conditions mentioned therein are fulfilled – This is a case
where the reservation under the Plan dtd. 24.08.84, which was the
final Development Plan, had not lapsed and it was finally revised
u/s.38 – High Court right in finding that the appellant was not entitled
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
473
to the relief based on lapsing of reservation u/s.127 – Present is not
a case for powers u/Art.142 to be exercised – Appellants must wait
for a period of ten years u/s.127 from 15.05.12 and then can issue
notice contemplated under the Act, unless action is already taken
in the meantime – No view expressed on invoking of s.49 – All
remedies available to the appellants are left open – Constitution of
India – Art.142 – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Settlement Act, 2013.
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 – s.38
– Discretion under, of the Planning Authority – If any – Discussed.
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 – s.126
– Effect of declaration under – Discussed.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The right would accrue to the owner under
Section 127 of the Act to serve notice thereunder only if a
declaration is not published within ten years of the Development
Plan under Section 126(4) of the Act, inter alia. The High Court
has, undoubtedly, noticed that the final Development Plan came
into force on 24.08.1984. It further noticed that there is a
declaration or Notification under Section 126(4) of the Act on
03.09.1992. This means, within ten years from 24.08.1984, there
is action, as contemplated under Section 126(4) of the Act. Under
Section 127 of the Act, therefore, any notice which was given
may not hold good going by the letter of the law. In this case, it is
clear that the appellants are governed by the Act. There is no
dispute that invoking Section 38 of the Act that a revised final
Development Plan has come into effect from 15.05.2012. It is
undoubtedly true that the reservation under the original
Development Plan dated 24.08.1984 would cease to impact the
appellants if the notice under Section 127 of the Act was issued
on the passage of ten years from 24.08.1984 and, if action under
Section 127 of the Act was not taken. It is true that notice dated
09.06.2004 was issued by the predecessor in title of the appellants.
This is not a case where there was inaction on the part of the
previous owners of the property upon the expiry of ten years
from the date of the final Development Plan in 1984. The problem
for appellants, however, is the action on the part of the respondent
MOHANDAS AND OTHERS v. THE STATE

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