NIRMITI DEVELOPERS THROUGH ITS PARTNERS & ANR. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1206 · Decided: 25-02-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1206 : 2025 INSC 265
Nirmiti Developers Through its Partners & Anr.  
v. 
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 3238-3239 of 2025)
25 February 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala* and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the reservation of the plot of land lapsed under Sections 49, 
126 and 127 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 
1967 due to the failure of the authorities to acquire it within the 
statutory timeframe, thereby entitling the appellants to use the land 
as permissible under law.
Headnotes†
Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1967 – Section 
49, Section 126 and Section 127 – Reservation to lapse if no 
step taken for acquisition of land within the prescribed time 
period – Landowners are free to use land as if there was no 
reservation:
Vide the revised development plan for Amravati under the 
Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1967 [‘MRTP Act’], plot 
of land measuring 50,138 sq. ft. reserved for a private school for 
Respondent No. 5, a Public Trust – No steps were taken between 
1993 and 2006 by Respondents to acquire the property – On 
04.07.2006, the erstwhile owners served a purchase notice under 
Section 49 of the MRTP Act – Respondent No. 1 confirmed the 
notice on 02.01.2007 and ordered Respondent No. 5 to complete 
acquisition within 12 months, failing which the reservation would 
lapse – Acquisition proceedings were not completed by 02.01.2008, 
and no compensation was deposited by Respondent No. 5 with 
any authority – The erstwhile owners sold the land in December 
2015 to the Appellants – In March 2016, the Appellants filed a 
writ petition in the High Court seeking either compensation from 
Respondent No. 5 for land reserved for it or declaration that the 
reservation had lapsed under Section 49(7) – The High Court in 
impugned order disposed of the Writ Petition taking the view that 
* Author
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 
1207
Nirmiti Developers Through its Partners & Anr. v. 
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Section 49(7) would not apply to the present Appellants as the 
erstwhile owners did not use the land after de-reserving it – Appeal 
against impugned order allowed – Held, as per Section 49(7), the 
reservation lapsed on 02.01.2008, allowing the erstwhile owners 
to use the plot of land as permissible in law. 
Held: It is clear that the scheme of Sections 126 and 127 that if a 
period of 10 years has elapsed from the date of publication of the 
plan in question, and no steps for acquiring the land have been 
taken, then once a purchase notice is served under Section 127, 
steps to acquire the land must follow within a period of one year 
from the date of service of such notice, or else the land acquisition 
proceedings would lapse – The principles underlying in Section 127 
of the MRTP Act is either to utilize the land for the purpose for which 
it is reserved in the timeline given or let the owner utilize the land for 
the purpose as permissible under the town planning scheme – The 
reservation shall be deemed to have lapsed if no steps are taken for 
acquisition of the said land within the prescribed period – Indisputably, 
in the present case, the respondents have not taken any steps to 
issue notification after receipt of the notice. [Paras 34, 47]
MRTP Act, 1967 – Section 126 and Section 127 – Statutory period 
of ten years sacrosanct – Reservation to lapse after ten years:
Held: The landowner cannot be deprived of the use of the land for 
years together – Once an embargo has been put on a landowner 
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 landowner 
to serve a notice for acquisition – Such timeline is sacrosanct 
and has to be adhered to – It is declared that the reservation of 
the plot in question could be said to have lapsed by efflux of time 
even under Sections 126 and 127 of the MRTP Act. [Paras 50,51]
Constitution of India – Article 142 – Reservation to have lapsed 
owing to gross delay of thirty years:
Held: Having regard to the gross delay of almost thirty years in 
acquiring the land, even without the aid of Section 127 of the MRTP 
Act, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution 
to do complete justice in the matter, the reservation would have 
been declared as having lapsed. [Para 52]
1208

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