MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY versus DR. HAKIMWADI TENANTS ASSOCIATION & ORS.

Citation: [1988] 2 S.C.R. 21 · Decided: 24-11-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

--; 
' 
--
I 
/ 
~ 
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY 
v. 
DR. HAKIMWADI TENANTS ASSOCIATION & ORS. 
NOVEMBER 24, 1987 
[A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] 
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966: s. 127-
Limitation of six months-Failure to acquire land reserved for town 
planning within statutory period of ten years-Purchase notice served 
by owners-Limitation whether to reckon from date of notice. 
A 
B 
c 
Practice and Procedure: Waiver-Requirements of-Where there 
is no estoppel there is no waiver. 
Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning 
Act, 1966 provides that if any land reserved under the Act was not 
acquired by agreement within ten years from the date on which a final 
D 
regional plan or final development plan came into force or if proceed· 
ings for the acquisition of such land under that Act or under the Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894 were not commenced within such period, the 
owner or any person interested in the land may serve notice on the 
appropriate authority to that dTect and if within six months from the 
date of the service of such notice, the land was not acquired or no 
E 
steps as aforesaid were commenced for its acquisition, the reservation 
should be deemed to have lapsed. 
The Planning Authority, the Municipal Corporation of Greater 
Bombay, published a draft development plan reserving the land in 
dispute for a recreation ground. The said plan was finalised and sane· 
F 
tioned by the State Government on January 6, 1967. It came into 
effect from February 7, 1967 and thereunder the land was again 
reserved for recreation ground. No action having been taken for 
acquisition of the land, the trustees of the land served a notice dated 
July 1, 1977 on the Commissioner for Municipal Corporation either to 
acquire the land or relea&e it from acquisition. The same was received 
G 
by the latter on July 4, 1977. 
On July 28, 1977 the Corporation's Executive Engineer asked 
for information regarding the 01mership of the land and the particu-
lars of the tenants thereof from trustees-respondents Nos. 4·7, and 
stated that the relevant date under s. 127 cf the Act would be the date 
H 
21 
) 
22 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] 2 S.C.R. 
A upon which this information was received. The trustees by their 
lawyer's letter dated August 3, 1977 conveyed that the period of six 
months stipulated by s. 127 has to be computed from the date of the 
receipt of the purchase notice by the Corporation, i.e. July 4, 1977 
and stated that the Corporation had access to all the relevant records. 
The requisite information was also provided therein. The Executive 
13 
Engineer wrote stating that the period of six months allowed by s. 127 
of the Act would commence on August 4, 1977, the date when the 
requisite information was furnished. Thereafter the Executive 
Engineer by his letter dated November 2, 1977 inquired of the trustees 
whether they were prepared to sell the property in question to which 
the trustees quoted an overall rate of Rs.650 per square metre through 
C their lawyer's reply dated November 18, 1977. They expressly stated 
that the offer was made without admitting the power and authority of 
the appellant to acquire the land or to initiate the proceedings for 
acquisition. Instead of accepting the same, the Executive Engineer by 
his letter dated January 11, 1978 asked the respondents to disclose the 
basis for the rate of Rs.650 per sq. metre. The Corporation had, in the 
D meanwhile passed a resolution on January 10, 1978 for the acquisition 
of the land and made an. application to the State Government dated 
January 31, 1978 for taking necessary steps. The State Government 
issued the requisite notification dated April 7, 1978 under s. 6 of the 
Land Acquisition Act 1894 for acquisition ofland. 
E 
On Joly 17, 1978, respondent No. 1, the tenants' association, 
filed a petition in the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution 
for quashing the impugned notification. The High Court held that the 
most crucial step was the application to be made by the Corporation to 
the State Government nnder s. 126(1) of the Act for acquisition of the 
land within the period of six months commencing from July 4, 1977, 
F the date of service of the purchase notice, and that upon the expiry of 
the said period on January 3, 1978, the reservation of the land had 
lapsed and it was released from such reservation. It took tile view that 
all that was required was that the owner or the pe

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