PRAFULLA C. DAVE & ORS. versus MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 13 S.C.R. 1397 · Decided: 03-12-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014]13 S.C.R. 1397 
PRAFULLA C. DAVE & ORS. 
v. 
MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1999 of 2008) 
A 
DECEMBER 03, 2014 
B 
[RANJAN GOGOi AND R. K. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 -
ss. 21, 38 and 127(2) - Lapsing of reservation - Notice uls. 
127(2) and the period of 10 years prescribed therein, whether C 
would be from the date.of publication of the development 
plan first notified u/s. 21 or from the date of revised 
development plan u/s. 38 - Land in question kept under 
reservation in July 1966 under development plan u/s. 21 -
Continued under reservation by the revised development D 
plan uls. 38 in January 1987 - Notice u/s. 127 by purchasers 
of the land in the year 1989- The notice held to be premature, 
by th~ appellate authority as well as the High Court, having 
been issued before completion of 10 years from the date of 
the revised development plan - Held: The Act does not 
provide for automatic lapsing of acquisition in expiry of ten E 
years - .The statute permits the continuation of the 
reservation even beyond period of ten years unless it is 
interdicted by service of notice u/s. 127 by the party interested 
in the land and on failure of the authority to so act - If the 
person interested fails to take action before the finalization 
F 
of the revised plan uls. 38, the reservation of the land in the 
revised plan will come into play - The notice uls. 127 was 
rightly held to be premature as the same was issued only 
after two years of the revised plan as against 10 years as G 
prescribed uls. 127. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Under Section 127 of the Maharashtra 
Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) 
reservation, allotment or designation of any land for any H 
1397 
1398 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 13 S.C.R. 
A public purpose specified in a development plan is 
deemed to have lapsed and such land is deemed to be 
released only after notice on the appropriate authority 
is served calling upon such authority either to acquire 
the land by agreement or to initiate proceedings for 
B acquisition of the land either under the MRTP Act or 
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the said 
authority fails to comply with the demand raised 
thereunder. Section 127 of the MRTP Act or any other 
provision of the said Act does not provide for automatic 
C lapsing of the acquisition, reservation or designation of 
the land included in any development plan on the expiry 
of ten years. [Para 19][1410-B-F] 
2. under Section 38 a revised plan is to be prepared 
on the expiry of a period of 20 years from date of coming 
D into force of the approved plan under Section 31 whereas 
Section 127 contemplates a period of 10 years with effect 
from the same date for the consequences provided for 
therein to take effect. The statute, therefore, 
contemplates the continuance of a reservation made for 
E a public purpose in a final development plan beyond a 
period of ten years. Such continuance would get 
interdicted only upon the happening of the events 
contemplated by Section 127 i.e. giving/service of notice 
by the land owner to the authority to acquire the land 
F and the failure of the authority to so act. [Para 19] 
[1411-B-E] 
3. If the land owner or the person interested himself 
remains inactive, the provisions of the Act dealing with 
the preparation of revised plan under Section 38 will have 
G full play. Action on the part of the land owner or the 
person interested as required under Section 127 must 
be anterior in point of time to the preparation of the 
revised plan. Delayed action on the part of the land 
owner, that is, after the revised plan has been finalized 
H 
PRAFULLA C. DAVE & ORS. v. MUNICIPAL 
1399 
COMMISSIONER & ORS. 
and published will not invalidate the reservation, A 
allotment or designation that may have been made or 
continued in the revised plan. [Para 19][1411-E-G] 
4. The facts of the present case makes it plainly 
clear that the notice under Section 127 by the appellants 
was issued only two years after the final revised plan. B 
under Section 38 had come into operation. The rejection 
of the appellants' plea before the appellate authority 
under Section 4 7 of the Act as well as the rejection of the 
writ petition filed by the appellants before the Bombay 
High Court was, therefore, fully justified. [Para 21] C 
[1412-E-F] 
Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) 
Ltd. & Ors. 2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 517: 20

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