PRAKASH R. GUPTA versus LONAVALA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 16 S.C.R. 1067 · Decided: 02-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU, AFTAB ALAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008) 16 S.C.R. 1067 
-\ 
PRAKASH R. GUPTA 
A 
v. 
LONAVALA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ORS. 
· · (Civil Appeal No. 7801 of 2002) 
DECEMBER 2, 2008 
8, 
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND AFT AB ALAM, JJ.] 
... 
1 
MAHARASHTRA REGIONAL AND TOWN PLANNING 
ACT, 1966: 
c 
s. 127 - Lapsing of reservation - Land not acquired within 
10 years of final regional plan/final development plan coming 
into force - No steps taken for acquisition of land within six 
months of the service of notice by the land owner - HELD: 
The reservation having lapsed, land has to be released in 
favour of the land owner - Reference to s. 49 by High Court D 
)· 
was totally misconceived and uncalled for- Judgment of High 
"' 
Court set aside - Land in question shall be released forthwith 
in favour of land owner. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
E 
7801 of 2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.11.2001 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 2945 of 
2001. 
F 
.... 
R.F. Nariman, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Rahul Joshi, Brijkishor 
Sah, Lenin S. Hijam, Pramji Paul, Aparajita Singh (for V N. 
Raghupathy) Jayashree Wad, Ashish Wad, Chirag S. Dave, 
Satya Vikram, Sameer Abhyankar (for M/s. J.S. Wad & Co.) 
G 
and Sanjay V. Kharde (for Asha G. Nair) for the appearing 
.. ,,... 
parties . 
~ 
The following Order of the Court delivered: 
1067 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1068 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008) 16 S.C.R. 
ORDER 
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 
2. This appeal has been filed c.lgainst the impugneo 
judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, dated 9th 
November, 2001. The detailed facts are given in the impugned 
judgment of the High Court and it is not necessary for us to 
repeat the same here except where necessary for deciding the 
appeal. 
3. The appellant is the owner of the land in gispute. His 
land was reserved under a development plan for ~ certain 
college but that college got disaffiliated, Thereafter, a minor 
modification under Section 37 of the Maharashtra Regional and 
Town Planning Act, 1966 (in short, 'the Act') was issued and it 
was said to be allotted to the present respondent No.3. 
4. However, it appears that the land was not acquired 
within the ten year period mentioned in Section 127 of the 
aforesaid Act. Section 127 states as under: 
"Lapsing of reservations 
If any land reserved, allotted or designated for any 
purpose specified in any plan under this Act is not . 
acquired by agreement within ten years from the date on 
which a final Regional plan, or final Development plan 
comes into force or if proceedings for the acquisition of 
such land under this Act or under the Land Acquisition Act, 
1894, are not commenced within such period, the owner 
or any person interested in the land may serve notice on 
the Planning Authority, Development Authority or as the 
case may be, Appropriate Authority to that effect; arid if 
within six months from the date of the service of such 
notice, the land is not acquired or no steps as aforesaid 
are commenced for its acquisition, the reservation, 
allotment or designation shall be deemed to have lapsed, 
and thereupon the land shall he deemed to be released 
;. 
r- .. 
. ' 
t 
.. 
_, 
:' 
' 
PRAKASH R. GUPTA v. LONAVALA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL 1069 
& ORS. 
·--\ 
from such reservation, allotment or designation and shall 
A 
become available to the owner for the purpose of 
development as otherwise, permissible in the case of 
adjacent land under the relevant plan." 
5. It is not disputed that the land was not acquired within 
B 
ten years from the date on which the final Regional plan or final 
i 
Development plan came into force and no proceedings for 
', 
acquisition of such land under the Land Acquisition Act were 
commenced within the aforesaid period of ten years. After the 
said period of teri years, the appellant, who was the owner of C' 
the land, served a notice on respondent No.1 as required by 
Section 127 calling upon the said authority to acquire the said 
land within six months or take steps within that period, but 
neither was the land acquired within the further period of six 
months nor were any steps taken to acquire it. Hence, in our 
D 
opinion, the reservation lapsed and the land has to be released 
in favour of the appellant. 
t 
6. The High Court, however, has taken the view that in view 
of Section 49 of the Act, there is no lapse of the reservation. 
We do not agree. In our opinion, the scheme contemplated by 
E 
Section 49 is
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.