CDJ Law Journals

Milind N. Jadhav, J.

1. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Vaibhav Joglekar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. Dilip Bodake, learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 and Dr. Milind Sathe, learned Advocate General for the State of Maharashtra.

2. On 28th July 2025, this Court [Coram : G. S. Kulkarni and Arif S. Doctor, JJ.] passed the following order after hearing the parties :

“1 On the earlier occasion and today we have heard Mr. Kumbhakoni, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner. The situation is quite peculiar. Petitioner is the owner of Final Plot No.79/15 C.T.S. No.224/15, admeasuring 5656.40 sq. mtrs. (said land) situated at Solapur. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the said land is unavailable for development to the Petitioner, as earlier it was reserved under the Draft Development Plan dated 26th March 1999, published under Section 26(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short "MRTP Act"). Later on 28th October 2004, a revised Development Plan was sanctioned by the State Government, with effect from 15th December 2004. By a separate Notification of the even date (dated 28th October 2004) certain portions/parts of the Draft Development plan were excluded, such as EP-44. However, the reservation in respect of the said land continued which now being reserved for the purpose of 'Play Ground'. This is clear from the State Government Notification dated 28th October 2004 annexed to the Petition. The entry in that regard reads thus:

"44

EP-44

Cultural Centre Site No.7/38 and Public Semi Public Zone.

TPS-III, F.P. No.79(pt.).

Land to the west of Site No.7/38 is proposed to be included in this reservation and the site so formed is proposed to be reserved for Playground."

                    2. The contention as urged on behalf of the Petitioner is that the reservation has continued in respect of the said land, except for the excluded portion mentioned in the Government Notification dated 28th October 2004. Notification dated 21st April 2008 was issued by the State Government sanctioning the modification as notified on 28th October 2004 (supra).

                    3. On the aforesaid backdrop, the Petitioner served a purchase notice dated 4th February 2015 under Section 127 of the MRTP Act on the Respondent-Municipal Corporation. In the context of such purchase notice, after obtaining a report dated 16th February 2015 from the Deputy Director, Town Planning, the General Body of the Municipal Corporation passed a resolution dated 16th April 2015, being Resolution No.58, to the effect that the Corporation is not in a sound financial condition to acquire the said land, in response to the purchase notice. The said position as borne out by Resolution No.58 dated 16th April 2015 by the Municipal Corporation has been reiterated and/or maintained the position in a recent communication received by the Petitioner, dated 25th July 2025, a copy of which is placed on record.

                    4. Accordingly, the issue is the inability of the Municipal Corporation to acquire the land which is reserved for public purpose, for want of financial resources. Admittedly, for such reason, the land of the Petitioner is not being acquired within the stipulated period as contemplated by Section 127 of the MRTP Act on receipt of the purchase notice issued under the said provision. If the land is not acquired as ordained by the said provision, certainly by operation of law, the reservation would be required to be held to be lapsed.

                    5. Although we may test the contentions as urged on behalf of the Petitioner on the facts as they stand, however, at the same time we cannot be oblivious to the larger issues which would arise, namely, that the Development Plan which is prepared by the Municipal Corporation and sanctioned by the State Government which has reservations made for larger public benefit like playgrounds, gardens, hospitals and several other public amenities etc. are likely to suffer in such manner, if a similar stand as taken by the Municipal Corporation and subject matter of the resolution dated 16th April 2015 that the Municipal Corporation has no financial resources. If this is to be accepted a general stand of the Solapur Municipal Corporation in regard to any reservation which the development plan prescribes, it would eminently defeat the entire purpose of the Development Plan and a situation would be brought about that none of the lands would be acquired. In fact the development plan reservations would be rendered otiose. This is a serious situation and of a larger public harm and damage, as such public amenities subject matter of the reservations would never be available to the public at large, and more particularly open spaces in the nature of the Playgrounds, Gardens, Hospitals and other similar amenities.

                    6. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the clear opinion that the Municipal Commissioner of the Solapur Municipal Corporation needs to place on record an affidavit explaining these issues on the financial constraints/inability of the Solapur Municipal Corporation. This, apart from the facts as involved. The Court needs to be appraised to what can be the approach of the Municipal Corporation in such peculiar situation, also whether the Solapur Municipal Corporation would not have any funds to be borrowed from the State Government or any other sources for such public purpose. Further, would such approach and position as taken by the Solapur Municipal Corporation would not render the development plan reservations to be paper reservations, and on issuance of purchase notices by the owners of the land, all such reservations would stand lapsed/defeated. Is this the position that the Solapur Municipal Corporation ultimately intends to take.

                    7. The question would be if the Solapur Municipal Corporation is unable to acquire lands when reservations and if the same are of the nature that a purchase notice can be issued under Section 127 of the MRTP Act then necessarily the reservations is of no consequence and a situation of the Solapur Municipal Corporation abandoning the development plan reservations arises.

                    8. All these are issues of larger public interest which would be required to be explained by the Municipal Commissioner on affidavit. We accordingly adjourn the proceedings to 11th August, 2025 (High on Board).

                    9. Once the views of the Municipal Commissioner are placed on record on such larger issues, we can proceed to pass appropriate orders. Albeit, the case of the Petitioner would stand on the applicability of the provisions of Section 127 of the MRTP Act, as already in this case, purchase notice was given on 4th February 2015 and there was no acquisition of the said land within a stipulated period of Ten years resulting into lapsing of reservation being the contention of the Petitioner.

                    10. Let the affidavit of the Municipal Commissioner be filed within 10 days from today and be served on the Advocate for the Petitioner well in advance.

                    11. We request the learned Advocate General to appear in the present proceedings for the State-Government. Copy of the order be forwarded by Ms. Prabhune to the learned Advocate General.

                    12. We may also observe that the issue which we have underscored would be issue relevant to several Municipal Corporations, who are in such financial situations as the Solapur Municipal Corporation.“

3. The matter was thereafter listed before this Bench on 3rd July 2026 and was argued by the parties. We also heard Dr. Milind Sathe, learned Advocate General on behalf of the State with regard to the above interlocutory order and the directions contained therein.

4. Briely stated, land of the Petitioner bear CTS Nos. 224 and 226 nomenclatured as Final Plot No.79 and 77 admeasuring 21,300 sq. mtrs and 38,600 sq. mtrs, part of T.P. Scheme No.III out of which suit property which is subject matter of present writ petition is Final Plot No. 76/16 bearing CTS No. 224/15 admeasuring 5,656 sq. mtrs. Admittedly, by registered sale deeds, the Petitioner purchased the aforesaid suit property on 17th June 2010 and 21st June 2012 and is admittedly the owner thereof. In the first development plan for Solapur Municipal Corporation 1977-97, the suit property was not reserved for any public purpose. On 22nd October 1992, gazette notification notifying the intent of Corporation to revise the development plan under Section 23(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 [for short “MRTP Act”] was published. On 26th March 1999, the gazette notification publishing the draft revised development plan under Section 26(1) of MRTP Act was published. On the same date, the draft revised development plan published under Section 26 of the MRTP Act showed the suit property being designated for and reserved for a cultural centre. On 28th October 2004, the revised development plan was sanctioned by the State Government with effect from 15th December 2004 with the excluded portion. The suit property forms part of the excluded portion and not that of the development plan which was sanctioned. On 28th October 2004, a further notification was published with respect to the excluded portions out of which excluded portion No.44, nomenclatured as Final Plot No.79/15, i.e., the suit property was re-designated and shown as reserved for playground along with additional area of final plot No.79(Part) situated on the western side of the original designated portion. On 21st August 2008, the notification was published in the gazette sanctioning the excluded portions including the suit property with effect from 15th November 2008, the suit property being excluded portion No.44 was re-designated as New Site No.7/38-PG. On 4th February 2015, the Petitioner gave purchase notice under Section 127(1) of MRTP Act to Solapur Municipal Corporation with regard to the aforesaid EP-44, i.e., new Site No. 7/38. On 16th February 2015, report of the Deputy Director of Town Planning was submitted to the Corporation. On 16th February 2015, the general body of Solapur Municipal Corporation passed a resolution, being Resolution No.58, to the effect that the Solapur Municipal Corporation is not having the financial wherewithal and condition to acquire the suit property in response to the purchase notice given by the Petitioner. On 26th July 2018, the Petitioner sought building permission so as to use the suit property for development. On 21st April 2019, the Corporation rejected the application seeking building permission. Petition was filed in February 2021 for the following reliefs :

                    “(a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to hold and declare that

                    (i) the Reservation No.7/38 in the Final Development Plan for 1997 to 2017 for the City of Solapur with respect to Final Plot No. 79/15 i.e. Old City Survey No.224/15 of the T.P.Scheme No. III of Solapur admeasuring 5,656.40 sq. mtrs. [which property is mentioned as Final Plot No.79(p) in the reservation sheet at Exhibit H (colly.) hereto] has lapsed under Section 127(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966;

                    (ii) Respondent No.1 is bound and liable to publish an order in the Official Gazette in terms of Section 127(2) of the MRTP Act thereby notifying de-reservation of the said property described in prayer clause (a)(i) above;

                    (iii) the letter dated 24.1.2019 (Exhibit S hereto) of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 rejecting the Petitioner's application dated 26.7.2018 (Exhibit R hereto) seeking permission, for development of the said property is per se illegal, arbitrary, unjust and void ab-initio and liable to be set aside.

                    (b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order, direction thereby:

                    (i) commanding the Respondent No. 1 to publish an order in the Official Gazette in terms of Section 127(2) of the MRTP Act for notifying de-reservation of the said property [described in prayer clause (a)(i) above] from the Reservation No.7/38 in the Sanctioned Final Development Plan for 1997 to 2017;

                    (ii) commanding the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to withdraw, rescind and cancel the letter dated 24.1.2019 (Exhibit-S hereto) and allow development of the said property [described prayer clause (a)(i) above] by granting all the necessary permissions and approvals as per the applicable laws;

                    (iii) commanding the Respondents not to include, notify or reserve the said property [described prayer clause (a)(i) above] for any public purpose whatsoever in any of the future draft/revised Development Plans for Solapur and/or sanction the same under the MRTP Act.”

5. Mr. Kumbhakoni, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner would contend that the statutory period of 10 years within which the the Respondent-Corporation was required to acquire the suit property from the date of sanction of development plan, which came into force on 15th December 2004, came to end on 14th December 2014 and therefore under Section 127(1) of MRTP Act, purchase notice dated 4th February 2015 issued by the Petitioner has not been acted upon by the Respondents. He would submit that the Respondent – Solapur Municipal Corporation failed to acquire the suit property within a period of 2 years from the date of service of purchase notice and, therefore, consequently on and from February 2017, the subject reservation of playground for new Site No.7-38-PG is deemed to have lapsed and the suit property is deemed to be de-reserved by operation of law under Section 127(1) of MRTP Act. He would submit that in that view of the matter, the State is bound and liable to issue notification with regard to such lapsing of reservation by duly passing and publishing the appropriate order as contemplated under the provisions of Section 127(2) of MRTP Act and hence the present petition.

6. Next, he would vehemently submit that after receipt of the purchase notice dated 4th February 2015, the Respondent No. 2 passed a resolution bearing Resolution No.58 dated 16th February 2015 which stated that the Corporation was not in a financial position to acquire the said property. He would further submit that the Petitioner received the communicated dated 25th July 2015 from the Solapur Municipal Corporation reiterating and maintaining the same position as per the resolution passed by Corporation. He would submit that inability of the Respondent-Corporation to acquire the suit property reserved for a public purpose for want of financial resources within the statutorily stipulated period as contemplated by Section 127 of MRTP Act has been admitted and once the land is not acquired as ordained by the said provision, by operation of law the reservation have to be held as lapsed. He would submit that the suit property belonging to the Petitioner cannot be kept under reservation or a cloud of reservation indefinitely without the acquiring body / Municipal Corporation taking any steps to acquire the same for designated and reserved public purpose of playground. He would submit that the Petitioner’s case in the present case satisfies all legal parameters and therefore rejection of the Petitioner’s application seeking development of the suit property in such circumstances is arbitrary and illegal. He would submit that once the Municipal Corporation has taken an unequivocal and clear stand by passing Resolution No.58 dated 16th April 2015, now the Corporation is estopped from contending that suit property is still under reservation for playground under the provisions of MRTP Act and the Petitioner cannot develop the same. He would therefore persuade the Court to quash and set aside the Corporation’s letter dated 24th January 2019 rejecting the Petitioner’s application dated 26th July 2018 seeking permission for development of the suit property. He would persuade us to apply the provisions of Section 127 of MRTP Act to the facts of the Petitioner’s case and plead that once the Petitioner’s property is not acquired within a period of 24 months from the date of service of purchase notice by the owner or by any person interested, the same stands lapsed under the scheme of Section 127 of MRTP Act and the Petitioner be permitted to use the suit property for residential or commercial use according to the development of adjacent lands. He wold submit that once the owner of the land under reservation is not provided with compensation within the statutorily stipulated period of 24 months after the receipt of purchase notice, the reservation automatically lapses. He would submit that the timeline in the present case prima facie suggests that the Petitioner’s suit property has been kept under a cloud of reservation without acquisition and that too without any authority of law which is in violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India as also affects the Petitioner’s fundamental right to carry on business as guaranteed under Article 19(g)(1) of the Constitution of India. Hence, he would persuade the Court to allow the petition.

7. Per contra Mr. Bodake, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent-Solapur Municipal Corporation, which is the acquiring body in the present case, would attempt to justify the delay in acquiring the suit property and draw our attention to affidavit-in-reply dated 5th March 2021 filed by the Assistant Director of Town Planning, Solapur Municipal Corporation, copy of which is appended at Page No.126 to the petition. At the outset, he would fairly and candidly submit that after receipt of purchase notice dated 4th February 2015, the Solapur Municipal Corporation placed proposal before the general body of Solapur Municipal Corporation to acquire the suit property and to make provision for release of compensation of approximately Rs.3.91 crore, however, due to unsound economic condition, the said subject was disposed of by passing Resolution No.58 by the general body of Solapur Municipal Corporation.

8. Another argument advanced by Mr. Bodake is that the effective date of service of purchase notice dated 4th February 2015 under Section 127 of MRTP Act in the present case is premature since the sanctioned development plan 1997-2017 as per the notification dated 28th October 2004 issued under Section 124 of MRTP Act came into effect only from 15th November 2008. He would submit that excluded portion No.44, which is the suit property, was sanctioned and reserved as playground as per government notification dated 15th November 2008 and therefore the purchase notice dated 4th February 2015 is premature.

9. Next, Mr. Bodake would draw our attention to the additional affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the Respondent No.2, namely, the Commissioner of Solapur Municipal Corporation dated 10th August 2025 pursuant to the aforesaid order and contend that notwithstanding the fact that Resolution No.58 was passed by the Respondent-Corporation due to the unsound financial condition of Corporation, under Rule 11(1) of UDCPR, the Petitioner was persuaded to accept FSI and TDR accommodation reservation in lieu of compensation. In Paragraph No.7 and 8 of the said affidavit-in-reply, following further reasons and steps taken by the Solapur Municipal Corporation have been stated:

                    “7. I say that the general body of the solapur municipal corporation has passed resolution No.16 dated 24.04.25 thereby resolved to incur the contribution in the various development schemes and work is to be implemented by the central govt., state govt. and local planning committees schemes like water supply, severege, electricity, roads etc. for which the municipal corporation has already deposited an amount of Rs.100,09,52,362/- and remaining amount required to deposit is an amount of Rs.552,37,70,813/-. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit "R-2" is the copy of general body resolution No.16 and standing committee resolution No. 13 dated 24.04.2025.

                    8. I say that apart from the above said development schemes, municipal corporations required to incur funds towards payment of difference of 5th, 6th and 7th pay commission and against leave encashment and commutation of pension to its employees which comes approx. amount of Rs. 200 crores for which budgetary provision required to be make by municipal corporation. I say that yearly revenue collection of Solapur Municipal Corporation is approx. Rs.200 to 250 crores, at the same time corporation is required to make the budgetary provision for essential services is approx. Rs.500 crores.”

10. In view of the aforesaid reasons, Mr. Bodake would submit that as enumerated in Rule 11.1 and 11.2 of UDCPR, appropriate directions be passed to the Petitioner to accept the compensation in the manner of TDR / FSI and accommodation reservation and the Corporation be allowed to develop the suit property for the designated reservation. In support of his submission, Mr. Bodake would rely upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Aminabee Abdul Wahab Malik vs. State of Maharashtra(2019(2) ALL MR 562.) and Vishwas Bajirao Patil vs. State of Maharashtra(2020(1) ALL MR 498 (F.B.).).

11. The submissions advanced by learned Advocates have received due consideration.

12. Insofar as the present case is concerned, in the draft development plan sanctioned by the State Government vide notification dated 28th October 2004, copy of which is appended at Exhibit-“G” (Page No.36) to the petition, the suit property is shown as Site No.7/38, being reserved for the cultural centre. This draft development plan was notified by the State Government on 28th October 2004 and it categorically refers to the draft development plan notified on 26th March 1999. It is seen that by virtue of this notification, the State Government after making appropriate enquiries, decided to sanction the development plan with modifications, some of which were substantial in nature and which were required to be published under Section 31 of the MRTP Act and therefore such modifications were included in the excluded portions, namely, EP-1 to EP-101. It is seen that the State Government by another notification issued on the same day, i.e., on 28th October 2004 notified the proposed modifications which were of substantial character in excluded portions, namely, EP-1 to EP-101 in Schedule-II of the said notification. In the said Schedule-II, which is in the form of a table, it is prima facie seen that the suit property is shown at Serial No.44 and is designated as EP-44, i.e., Excluded Portion-44. The said entry shows that the said EP-44 was earlier designated as cultural center under Site No.7/38 and the designation was proposed to be modified to a playground after adding the adjacent land to the west of said Site No.7/38. Thus, it is clear that the suit property was reserved / designated for the cultural centre at Site No.7/38 in the draft development plan first published on 26th March 1999 and which was sanctioned on 28th October 2004 with modification. Once this is the situation and position, it would be difficult for us to accept the submissions made by Mr. Bodake that notice will have to be taken about the suggestions and objections received and heard by the Deputy Director of Town Planning, Pune Division, Pune of the proposed modifications and the report submitted to the Government on 21st May 2006 and the date will have to be advanced beyond 28th October 2004. The submission and argument advanced by Mr. Bodake is to the effect that pursuant to the aforesaid, the State Government vide notification dated 7th August 2008, issued through the Urban Development Department extended the period for sanctioning the said excluded portion of the development plan for a further period upto 15th November 2008, as the said development plan was not sanctioned within 1 year from the date of its receipt under Sub-Section (1) of Section 31 of the MRTP Act. Therefore, Mr. Bodake would contend that once this was the position, then the Government Notification dated 21st August 2008 which was ultimately published in the Government Gazette on 28th September 2008, came into force with effect from 15th November 2008 and that should be the date which should be considered as the final date of coming into force of the sanctioned development plan. If Mr. Bodake’s submissions is to be accepted, then, in that case purchase notice given by the Petitioner on 5th February 2015 would be considered to be given within 10 years and therefore it would be contrary to the provisions of Section 127 of MRTP Act. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, such is not the position. It is seen that the sanctioned amended development plan/scheme for the period 1997-2017 with regard to the Final Plot No.79(p) as per the approved development plan reservation qua the suit property was shown as cultural center reservation for site No.7/38. It is seen that the said reservation was changed as per the excluded portion, i.e., EP-44 to the west side of said Site No.7/38 and the same was published as sanctioned development plan partly, vide notification dated 28th October 2004. In that view of the matter, we hold that the purchase notice dated 5th February 2015 given by the Petitioner to the Solapur Municipal Corporation in respect of reservation of Site No.7/38 has been correctly given and it is not premature.

13. That apart, the conduct of Solapur Municipal Corporation in placing the proposal for consideration of the General Body of Corporation for acquisition of the suit property and to make provision for payment of compensation being rejected by the General Body due to unsound economic condition of the Corporation also needs to be considered in the present case. The Respondents, namely, the acquiring body cannot play hot and cold. On the one hand, it is the case of Solapur Municipal Corporation that it is not in a position to acquire the suit property and make provision for payment of compensation in accordance with law and has taken a conscious decision accordingly and on the other hand the case of the Petitioner is vehemently objected to.

14. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Assistant Director of Town Planning, Solapur Municipal Corporation in paragraph No.11, the following submissions are made :

                    “11. I say that as stated herein above the effective date of the sanctioned development plan for 1997-2017 as per the Notification dated 28.10.2004 issued u/sec. 31 of the MRTP Act 1966 and the Petitioner has served the purchase notice dated 04.02.2015 u/sec. 127 of the MRTP Act, 1966, however, the effective date is from 15.11.2008 and hence the purchase notice is premature. I say that as per EP-44 sanctioned as on TPS-1707/8018/CR-709/07-UD/13 dated 12.08.2008 dated 15.11.2008 hence the Petitioner’s purchase notice dated 04.02.2015 served u/sec. 127 of the MRTP Act, 1966 is before completion of the 10 years pereiod and therefore the same is premature ”

15. The aforesaid contention of the Solapur Municipal Corporation cannot be accepted for more than one reason. It needs to be noted that the subject property was reserved for the public purpose of cultural centre under the development plan submitted by Solapur Municipal Corporation and sanctioned by the State Government vide Notification No. TPS-1701/2735/CR-41/2003/UD/13 dated 28th October 2004 issued under Section 31 of the MRTP Act vide Reservation No. 7/38. At that time, the Government had excluded certain parts from the said sanctioned final development plan, nomenclatured as Excluded Portion Nos.1 to 101, i.e. EP-1 to EP-101. Later on, by issuing virtue Notification No. TPS- 1707/818/CR-709/07/UD-13 dated 21st August 2008 under Section 31 of the MRTP Act, the Government of Maharashtra sanctioned the Excluded Portions-1 to 101, i.e. EP-1 to EP-101. Thus, the Excluded Portions of the said Final Development Plan bearing Nos. EP-1 to EP-101 were assimilated, subsumed and merged into the said Final Development Plan for the period 1997-2017. By virtue of the said sanctioned EP-44, the original reservation of cultural centre on the suit property alongwith an adjacent property was re-designated as playground under Site Reservation No.7/38. The said adjacent property was reserved for playground for the first time under EP-44 vide notification dated 21st August 2008. Therefore, the statutory period of 10 years within which timeframe the Solapur Municipal Corporation was required to acquire the said property from the date of sanctioned development plan, which came into force on 15th December 2004, came to an end on 14th December 2014 as per Sub-Section (1) of Section 127 of the MRTP Act. The Petitioner has, therefore, rightly issued the purchase notice dated 4th February 2015 in terms of Section 127(1) of the MRTP Act to the Respondent-Corporation thereby calling upon the Respondent-Corporation to acquire the said property. However, the Respondent-Corporation failed to acquire the said property within a period of 2 years from the date of service of purchase notice dated 4th February 2015. One more factor which needs to be noted is that in fact, the General Body of Solapur Municipal Corporation vide its Resolution No.58 dated 16th February 2015 discussed the purchase notice dated 4th February 2015 given by the Petitioner and has clearly admitted therein that it was necessary to acquire the said property within 10 years from the date of sanctioned development plan, failing which the reservation would lapse. As can be seen from the said resolution, the Respondent-Corporation has admitted and resolved that it was not in a position to acquire the said property in view of the unsound financial position of the Corporation.

16. All that we can say is that the property of the citizen cannot be locked or frozen indefinitely on account of it being reserved and designated for a public purpose. That is the precise reason as to why the provision of Section 127 of MRTP Act appears on the statute book. In any event, we would like to reiterate that the tenure of a development plan under the provisions of Section 22 of MRTP Act is 20 years. It is observed on several occasions that substantial time is lost in issuing the draft development plan, considering the objections and suggestions received thereafter and for issuance of the final development plan. In this process, the substantive right of the owner of property whose property is reserved for a public purpose gets affected and is completely frozen. Such owner of the land is unable to use his land for any development activity. In that view of the matter, the right of the citizens, such as the Petitioner before us, who issues the purchase notice will have to be construed strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 127 of MRTP Act.

17. We are of the opinion that the offer made by the Respondent-Corporation that the Petitioner should accept the FSI/TDR and accommodation reservation in lieu of payment of compensation cannot be thrust upon the Petitioner. The provisions of Section 127 of MRTP Act prima facie contemplate acquisition of the Petitioner’s land and if the said land is not acquired within the statutorily stipulated timeframe of 24 months in accordance with law, then, the acquisition will be deemed to have lapsed. There is no room for introduction of any alternate form of compensation or payment in terms of FSI/TDR or accommodation reservation contemplated under the provisions of MRTP Act unless the owner agrees by mutual consent.

18. The Petitioner’s land having been reserved in the first instance in the year 1999 for effecting the development plan for the period 1997-2017, has already stood frozen from the year 1999 itself. The final development plan is sanctioned on 28th October 2004. Therefore, the submission made by Solapur Municipal Corporation that the effective date of 10 years would commence from the year 2008 in the facts and circumstances of the present case which are alluded to hereinabove cannot be accepted. Hence, we are unable to accept the submissions advanced by Mr. Bodake for determining that the purchase notice issued by the Petitioner in the year 2015 is premature on the basis of notification issued by the State Government in the year 2008 sanctioning EP-1 to EP-101. The primary notification in the present case which will govern the field is the notification dated 28th August 2004 whereby the revised development plan came to be sanctioned by the State Government with effect from 15th December 2004 with the excluded portion, namely, EP-44.

19. Mr. Bodake has also drawn our attention to the affidavit-in-reply dated 10th August 2025 while answering the question posed by this Court vide order dated 28th July 2025. All that the Corporation has stated is that in view of the several development schemes, the Corporation is required to incur expenses towards various development schemes introduced by the Central Government, State Government and local planning committees, such as water supply, sewerage, electricity, roads etc. It further states that the Corporation is also required to incur expenses towards the payment of difference of arrears of employees concerning the 5th, 6th and 7th pay commission and against the leave encashment and commutation of pension to its employees which comes to approximate amount of Rs.200 crores. It also states that the yearly revenue collection of Solapur Municipal Corporation is approximately Rs.200 to 250 crores, and at the same time the Respondent-Corporation is required to make the budgetary provision for essential services which is approximately to the tune of Rs.500 crores. We cannot take cognizance of these issues raised by the Corporation in regard to the Petitioner’s case before us.

20. In view of our above observations and findings, the petition stands allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b), which read thus :

                    “(a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to hold and declare that

                    (i) the Reservation No.7/38 in the Final Development Plan for 1997 to 2017 for the City of Solapur with respect to Final Plot No. 79/15 i.e. Old City Survey No.224/15 of the T.P.Scheme No. III of Solapur admeasuring 5,656.40 sq. mtrs. [which property is mentioned as Final Plot No.79(p) in the reservation sheet at Exhibit H (colly.) hereto] has lapsed under Section 127(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966;

                    (ii) Respondent No.1 is bound and liable to publish an order in the Official Gazette in terms of Section 127(2) of the MRTP Act thereby notifying de-reservation of the said property described in prayer clause (a)(i) above;

                    (iii) the letter dated 24.1.2019 (Exhibit S hereto) of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 rejecting the Petitioner's application dated 26.7.2018 (Exhibit R hereto) seeking permission, for development of the said property is per se illegal, arbitrary, unjust and void ab-initio and liable to be set aside.

                    (b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order, direction thereby:

                    (i) commanding the Respondent No. 1 to publish an order in the Official Gazette in terms of Section 127(2) of the MRTP Act for notifying de-reservation of the said property [described in prayer clause (a)(i) above] from the Reservation No.7/38 in the Sanctioned Final Development Plan for 1997 to 2017;

                    (ii) commanding the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to withdraw, rescind and cancel the letter dated 24.1.2019 (Exhibit-S hereto) and allow development of the said property [described prayer clause (a)(i) above] by granting all the necessary permissions and approvals as per the applicable laws;

                    (iii) commanding the Respondents not to include, notify or reserve the said property [described prayer clause (a)(i) above] for any public purpose whatsoever in any of the future draft/revised Development Plans for Solapur and/or sanction the same under the MRTP Act.”

21. Needless to state that the Petitioner shall be entitled to use the suit property in terms of the use of adjacent lands in accordance with law.

22. After the judgment was pronounced, Mr. Bhosale, learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent-Corporation persuades the Court to stay the effect and operation of this judgment in order to enable the Respondent-Corporation to test its validity and legality before the Supreme Court.

23. We have duly considered the request made by Mr. Bhosale. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as also the timeline involved, we are not inclined to grant the said request. The prayer for stay the effect and operation of this judgment is accordingly rejected.

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size Show / Hide