Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale, J.
1) By the present Petition, the Petitioners inter alia seek the following prayers:-
“b) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ/Order directing the respondents to purchase the suit land under the provisions of section 49 read with section 126 in view of the confirmation of Purchase Notice of the petitioner against the cash payment at the Government minimum fixed price in present ready reckoner for vacant residential land in Chitalsar-Manpada, Thane within period of preferably Three months.
(c) In the alternate it be declared that the reservation be declared as having lapsed and the respondents be directed to publish a notification accordingly.
(c-1) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased declare that the D.P reservations imposed on the subject land (which are more particularly described in para 1 of the Petition) have lapsed and the said land is released from the said reservations of public park, Police station and HCMTR and the said land is available to the Petitioners for the purpose of development as permissible in respect of adjacent land under Section 127 (1) of the MRTP Act, 1966 and further direct the Respondent No. 1 to notify the lapsing of reservations of public park, Police station and HCMTR on the subject land more particularly described in para 1 of the Petition by issuing notification to that effect under Section 127(2) of the MRTP Act, 1996;
(c-2) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased quash the reservation of public part, Police Station and HCMTR on the subject land more particularly described in para 1 of the Petition;”
2) Briefly stated the factual matrix of the case is as under;
2.1) The Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are propriety concerns of Mr.Bhagwandas Tolani. The Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 vide independent sale deeds both dated 20th August 1962, with the prior approval of the Collector of Thane and the Government of Maharashtra purchased from M/s. D. Dahyabhai & Co., lands out of Gut No. 59 (part) admeasuring about 45157.16 sq. mtr and 10655.51 sq. mtr. respectively (totally 55812.67 sq. mtr) at Chitalsar, Manpada, Thane(West). The Petitioner No. 1 purchased 27,163.02 sq.mtrs land in Gut No. 59/22(Part), 59/23 and 17,994.14 sq.mtrs land in Gut No. 59(Part)/78B. The Petitioner No.2 i.e. Tolani brothers had purchased land admeasuring 10,655.51 sq. meters out of Survey No. 59(part).
2.2) Out of the 10,655.51 sq. mtrs land, Respondent No.7 i.e. Mrs. Manda Rama Waghmare claims ownership of an area admeasuring 7450 sq.meters as a protected tenant in respect of land which is owned by Petitioner No.2/M/s.Tolani brothers. Certain Revenue proceedings have been initiated. The Petitioner No.2 has filed Writ Petition No. 10338 of 2009 which challenges the claim of Respondent No.7 of being a protected tenant. By an Order dated 27th August 2010, the Petition has been admitted and the parties have been directed to maintain status quo. Thus, the area admeasuring 3205.15 sq.meters is of the undisputed ownership of Petitioner No.2.
2.3) The Thane Municipal Corporation sanctioned development plan of Thane in the year 1999 and the revised D.P. plan was sanctioned in the year 2003. Out of the lands owned by the Petitioners, an area admeasuring 48,963.43 sq.meters came under D.P. reservation, more particularly as under:
| Sr. | Reservation | Planning/Appropriate Authority | Sq. Mtr. |
| 1 | Park | Thane Municipal Corporation | 29,525.13 |
| 2 | Police Station | State Government | 2,528.85 |
| 3 | HCMTR | Thane Municipal Corporation | 4,608.45 |
| 4 | 30 & 40 Mtrs. Road | Thane Municipal Corporation | 12,274.00 |
| Total 48,936.43 | |||
2.5) On 13th February 2007, the Petitioners issued a purchase notice under Section 49(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, (MRTP Act) in respect of the reservation of Park, Police Station, HCMTR and the 30 meters wide road. The Respondent No.3 by communication dated 25th April 2007, informed the State Government that, the Respondent No.3 is ready and willing to acquire the land by granting the TDR in accordance with the prevailing TDR policy. By letter dated 12th July 2007, addressed to Respondent No.1, the Petitioners made it clear that they would not accept TDR in lieu of monetary compensation for the sale of the reserved land which was proposed to be acquired by Respondent Nos. 3 and 5. Respondent No.3 was requested to purchase the suit land against payment of fair market price or in the alternative to release the land from the reservation.
2.6) The Respondent No.1 accepted the purchase notice dated 13th February 2007 as issued by the Petitioner under Section 49 of the MRTP Act and by letter dated 10th August 2007, directed the Petitioner to contact the Respondent No.3 for the purposes of taking appropriate action in the matter. The Respondent No.1 directed Respondent No.3 and Respondent No. 5 to complete the acquisition for the reserved land within a period of one year and also raised the concern about lapsing of reservation in case of failure to take timely action.
2.7) Respondent No.3 by letter dated 14th January 2008, addressed to the Petitioners informed that, the notice has been accepted under Section 49(7) of the MRTP Act by Respondent No.1 and land under reservation for Park, HCMTR and 30 meter wide D. P. road would be acquired. Despite such intimations and directions no steps were taken.
2.8) Respondent No.3 then made an application on 16th January 2008, for acquisition of the suit properties while submitting the proposal for acquisition to the District Collector, Thane. Despite the application no steps were taken.
2.9) The Petitioner No.1 filed Writ Petition No. 2126 of 2012 and Petitioner No.2 filed Writ Petition No. 2071 of 2012 seeking a declaration of lapsing of reservation under Section 49(7) of the MRTP. This Court by Order dated 12th March 2019, disposed the said two Writ Petitions by observing that, Respondent No.3 had made an Application within the stipulated period of one year and in view thereof there was no lapsing under Section 49(7) of the MRTP Act. The land of the Petitioners thus remained under reservation.
2.10) As no action was taken by the Respondent, the Petitioners issued, through their Advocate legal notices dated 3rd October 2022 and 9th November 2022 under Section 127 of the MRTP Act. The notices were issued to Respondent No.3 i.e Thane Municipal Corporation and the Respondent No.5 the Commissioner of Police, calling upon them to purchase the suit land. There was no reply received to the said notices.
2.11) As no action was taken by the Respondents after receipt of the notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, the Petitioners sought to amend the present Petition and prayed for declaration of lapsing under Section 127 of the MRTP Act.
3) Mr. Godbole, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners submits that:-
3.1) Nearly 90% of the Petitioner’s lands are under reservation since the year 1999, out of which land admeasuring 12,274 sq.mtrs in respect of 30mtr and 40mtr road reservation was taken without following the due process of law, though subsequently, the Petitioner were compensated in terms of TDR.
3.2) The present Petition pertains to land admeasuring 36,662.43 sq. mtrs which land has been under reservation in the past more than 26 years which adversely affects the Petitioners right to property. Though, legal notices dated 3rd October 2022 and 9th November 2022 under Section 127 of MRTP Act were served upon the Respondents no action has been taken by the Respondents.
3.3) There is no particular format of the notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act. What is necessary is that, a purchase notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act is issued and the intention of the Petitioner is conveyed and understood by the authorities.
3.4) If compulsory acquisition is made the same should be made in time bound manner and without an inordinate delay in completing the process of acquisition. The process of acquisition has to be completed within the stipulated timelines. The reservation cannot go on for an indefinite period of time, without completing the reservation process and compensating the land owner. The property rights of an citizen cannot be alter and adversely affected in such a manner for an definite time period.
3.5) The acquiring authority i.e. Thane Municipal Corporation has in its affidavit dated 16th July 2025 and 29th September 2025 specifically stated and admitted that, it has no funds to acquire the subject land and it can only acquire the land by compensation in terms of TDR. The acquiring authority has in no uncertain terms stated that, it is not in a position to compensate the Petitioners for the said land. During the arguments it was submitted that, the cost of the Petitioner’s land is about 4,18,00,00,000/- ( Rupees Four Hundred and Eighteen Crores only). The Petitioners have by their letter dated 12th July 2007 made it clear that, the Petitioners were not ready to accept the TDR against the said reservation. It is settled law that, an owner cannot be compelled to accept TDR as compensation and if TDR is not acceptable to the owner then compensation in terms of money ought to be given.
3.6) That, 24 months mandatory period as required under Section 127 of the MRTP Act has lapsed and that the authorities have not acquired the subject property. In view of the said inaction, the reservation has automatically lapsed.
4) Mr. R. S. Apte learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Respondent No.3 submits that:-
4.1) By Order dated 12th March 2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 2071 of 2012 and 2126 of 2012, this Court has dismissed the said Writ Petitions where the Petitioners had sought a declaration under 49(7) of MRTP Act that, the land in question were deemed to have been released from reservation and available to the Petitioners for development.
4.2) There was no lapsing of the reservation in terms of Section 49 of the MRTP Act as Respondent No.3 had taken requisite steps within a period of one year from confirmation of the purchase notice dated 13th February 2007. Respondent No.3 Corporation is ready and willing to acquire the subject land subject to the Petitioners accepting TDR/FSI as compensation in accordance with the applicable policy. That, the Petitioners in the past have accepted the TDR/FSI for the reservation in respect of the land acquired for the road.
4.3) Respondent No.3 has placed on record the audited financial statements of Respondent No.3 for the last five financial years which clearly demonstrate the corporation’s financial inability to pay compensation in terms of money. That, the prayer of the Petitioners is only in the alternative to seek lapsing of reservations on the ground that no steps have been taken by the Corporation after receipt of the purchase notice dated 3rd October 2022.
4.4) That, the notices dated 3rd October 2022 and 9th November 2022 issued under Section 127 of the MRTP Act are defective in nature in as much as no documents pertaining to the title of the property were annexed. The Corporation was called upon to acquire the land within a period of 30 days whereas the statutory period as prescribed under Section 127 of the MRTP Act is a period of 24 months. That, the notice being defective, the declaration for lapsing of reservation is not maintainable and cannot be made.
4.5) The reliance of the Petitioner on the case of Chhabildas v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 784 is incorrect as in the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has exercised its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and granted reliefs in the peculiar facts of the said case where the land remained under reservation for more than 20 years.
4.6) No Writ of Mandamus can be issued against Respondent No.3 directing compulsory acquisition of subject land, as there is no statutory obligation cast upon Respondent No.3 under the MRTP Act to acquire the land. The Corporation has at all times expressed its readiness and willingness to acquire the land subject to payment of compensation in terms of TDR/FSI.
4.7) The aforesaid proposal of compensation in terms of TDR/FSI was given to the Petitioners. That, the average allocation towards the land acquisition made by Respondent No.3 is only about 0.35% of the annual budget of Respondent No.3. The estimated acquisition cost of the Petitioners land is approximately 4,18,00,00,000/- which constitutes nearly about 15.50% of Respondent No.3’s annual budget. Incurring such kind of expenditure for acquisition would seriously prejudice the implementation of the other essential public infrastructure projects undertaken by Respondent No.3.
4.8) Serious ownership dispute exists between the Petitioners and Respondent No.7 regarding the land covered under the Park and the Police Station reservation. In respect of the said reservation an RTS Appeal No. 22 of 2010 is pending before the Revenue Authorities. Respondent No.2 has filed Writ Petition No. 10338 of 2009 challenging the claim of Respondent No.7 which is pending before this Court, wherein by Order dated 27th August 2010 this Court had directed the Petitioner and Respondent No.7 to maintain status quo. That, the ownership of land covered by the Park and the Police Station reservations is itself sub-judice.
5) We have heard learned Counsels appearing for the parties at length. Perused the pleadings and the record.
6) The main contention of Mr. Girish Godbole, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioners is that, since the reservation in respect of the land is in existence since the year 1999 and the revised development plan of Thane Municipal Corporation was sanctioned on 3rd April 2003, the Petitioners right to property has been adversely affected and restricted for the past more than 26 years. It was submitted that, the Petitioners had before seeking the lapsing of reservation has specifically requested the Government Authorities to acquire the land and pay the applicable compensation. The only condition of the Petitioners was that they were not willing to accept TDR/FSI in lieu of the cash compensation. Further the Petitioner had issued notice under Section 49 of the MRTP Act and initiated a proceedings seeking lapsing of the reservation, where the Petitioners were unsuccessful as by Order dated 12th March 2019, this Court had dismissed the Petitions. The Petitioners had then on 3rd October 2022 and 9th November 2022, issued notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act. Despite the said notices, no steps were taken by Respondent No.3 and or the Respondent No.5 for the acquisition of the land in question. After issuance of the legal notices for purchase dated 3rd October 2022 and 9th November 2022, the mandatory period of 24 months under Section 127 has lapsed and the authorities have not acquired the subject property. Therefore reservation has automatically lapsed.
7) Per contra, Mr. Apte, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 argued that (i) considering the Order dated 12th March 2019, where it was held that, there was no lapsing under Section 49(7) of the MRTP Act, and (ii) the proposal of Respondent No.3 to offer TDR/FSI in lieu of cash compensation, the Petitioners had no right and or locus to seek lapsing of reservation by issuing a notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act. It was further argued that, even the notice issued under Section 127 of the MRTP Act was not in accordance with law in as much as it did not showing the Petitioners title or interest in the documents contain title or interest in the land and the mandatory period of 24 months a period of 30 days was mentioned in the notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act.
8) It is the stand of the TMC that, the Respondent No.3 is not in a position to pay compensation of Rs. 4,18,00,00,000/- to the Petitioners and the offer of providing TDR/FSI in lieu of cash compensation was again reiterated.
9) Considering the aforementioned facts and submissions made on behalf of the parties, the questions which arise for our consideration are as under:-
(i) Whether the notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act is a valid notice?
(ii) Whether the non mention of the period of 24 months in the notices dated 3rd October 2022 and 9th November 2022, issued under Section 127 of the MRTP Act would make the notice defective?
10) Section 49 of the MRTP Act comes under Chapter IV which is titled as “Control of Development and use of Land included in Development Plans”. Section 49 reads as under:-
49. Obligation to acquire land on refusal of permission or on grant of permission in certain cases.— (1) Where—
(a) any land is designated by a plan as subject to compulsory acquisition, or
(b) any land is allotted by a plan for the purpose of any functions of a Government or local authority or statutory body, or is land designated in such plan as a site proposed to be developed for the purposes of any functions of any such Government, authority or body, or
(c) any land is indicated in any plan as land on which a highway is proposed to be constructed or included, or 1[(d) any land for the development of which permission is refused or is granted subject to conditions, and any owner of land referred to in clause (a), (b), (c) or (d) claims-
(i) that the land has become incapable of reasonably beneficial use in its existing state, or
(ii) (where planning permission is given subject to conditions) that the land cannot be rendered capable of reasonably beneficial use by the carrying out of the permitted development in accordance with the conditions; or]
(e) the owner of the land because of its designation or allocation in any plan claims that he is unable to sell it except at a lower price than that at which he might reasonably have been excepted to sell if it were not so designated or allocated, the owner or person affected may serve on the State Government within such time and in such manner, as is prescribed by regulations, a notice (hereinafter referred to as “the purchase notice”) requiring the Appropriate Authority to purchase the interest in the land in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
(2) The purchase notice shall be accompanied by a copy of any application made by the applicant to the Planning Authority, and of any order or decision of that Authority and of the State Government, if any, in respect of which the notice is given.
(3) On receipt of a purchase notice, the State Government shall forthwith call from the Planning Authority and the Appropriate Authority such report or records or both, as may be necessary, which those authorities shall forward to the State Government as soon as possible but not later than thirty days from the date of their requisition.
(4) On receiving such records or reports, if the State Government is satisfied that the conditions specified in sub-section (1) are fulfilled, and that the order or decision for permission was not duly made on the ground that the applicant did not comply with any of the provisions of this Act or rules or regulations, it may confirm the purchase notice, or direct that planning permission be granted without condition or subject to such conditions as will make the land capable of reasonably beneficial use. In any other case, it may refuse to confirm the purchase notice, but in that case, it shall give the applicant a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
(5) If within a period of six months from the date on which a purchase notice is served the State Government does not pass any final order thereon, the notice shall be deemed to have been confirmed at the expiration of that period.
1(6)* * * * * * *
2[(7) If within one year from the date of confirmation of the notice, the Appropriate Authority fails to make an application to acquire the land in respect of which the purchase notice has been confirmed as required under section 126, the reservation, designation, allotment, indication or restriction on development of the land shall be deemed to have lapsed; and thereupon, the land shall be deemed to be released from the reservation, designation, or, as the case may be, allotment, indication or restriction and shall become available to the owner for the purpose of development otherwise permissible in the case of adjacent land, under the relevant plan.]
10.1) Section 49 deals with the obligation to acquire land on refusal of permission or on grant of permission in certain cases. Section 49(1) provides that, here (a) any land is designated by a plan as subject to compulsory acquisition or (b) any land is allotted by plan for a purpose of any functions of a Government or local authority or statutory body or is land designated in a such plan as a site proposed to be developed for the purposes of any functions of any such Government, Authority or body or (c) any land is indicated in any plan as land on which a highway is proposed to be constructed or included (d) any land for development of which permission is refused or granted subject to conditions (a), (b), (c) or (d) claims (i) that the land has become incapable of reasonably beneficial use in its existing state or (ii) where planning permission is given subject to conditions that the land cannot be rendered capable of reasonable beneficial use by carrying out the permitted development in accordance with the conditions or (e) the owner of the land because of its designation or allocation in any plan claims that he is unable to sale it except at a lower price than at which he might reasonably have expected to sell if it where not so designated or allocated then such owner or person affected may serve upon the Government within such time and manner as prescribed by the regulations, a notice requiring the appropriate authority to purchase the interest in the said land in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
11) Thus under Section 49(1), the owner upon any of the conditions as mentioned therein are met, is permitted to serve upon the Authority a purchase notice seeking the purchase of the land and/or interest therein in accordance with the MRTP Act.
12) Under Section 49(2), the purchase notice is to be accompanied by an application made by the applicant to the Planning Authority and of any order or decision that, the authority or the State Government if any in respect of which notice is given. On receipt of the purchase notice, the State Government under Section 49(3) shall forthwith call from the Planning Authority or the appropriate authority with such report or record or both, as may be necessary, which the authorities shall forward to the State Government not later than 30 days from the date of their requisition.
13) Under Section 49(4) after considering the reports, the State Government if satisfied that conditions in Section 49(1) are satisfied may confirm the purchase order, or refuse to confirm the notice or direct the planning permission to be granted without condition or subject to such conditions as will make the land capable of reasonable beneficial use. In case, the State Government refuses to confirm the purchase notice the owner shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
14) Under Section 49(5), it is provided that, if within a period of six months from the date on which purchase notice issued, the State Government does not pass any final order, the notice shall be deemed to have been confirmed on the expiration of the said period.
15) Under Section 49(7), if within one year from the date of the confirmation of notice, the appropriate authority fails to make an Application to acquire the land in respect of which purchase notice has been confirmed as required under Section 126 of the MRTP Act, the reservation, designation, allotment, indication or restriction on development of the land shall be deemed to have lapsed and the land deemed to be released from the reservation, designation or, as the case may be, allotment, indication or restriction and shall become available to the owner for the purposes of development which are otherwise permissible in case of adjacent land under the relevant plan. Thus, Section 49 provides to the owner an opportunity to serve upon the Authority a purchase notice if the conditions mentioned in 49(1) of the MRTP Act are fulfilled. The Section provides and stipulates certain timelines within the framework of which the owner and authorities are both expected to act and perform their duties. Section 49(7) clearly provides that if within 1 year from the date of confirmation of the notice, the authority fails to make an application to acquire the land as required under Section 126 of the MRTP Act, the reservation, designation, allotment, indication or restriction on the development of the land shall be deemed to have lapsed and land released. If steps are taken within the prescribed timelines under 49(7) of the MRTP Act, then the provisions of Sections 126 and 127 shall come into play.
16) Chapter VII of MRTP Act deals with Land Acquisition and comprises of Section 125 to 129. Section 125 deals with compulsory acquisition of land. Section 126 deals with acquisition of land required for public purposes specified in plans. Section 127 deals with lapsing of reservations. Section 128 deals with power of the State Government to acquire land for purpose other than the one for which it is designated, in any plan or scheme and Section 129 deals with possession of land in case of urgency. In the present case we are concerned with Section 126 and 127 of the MRTP Act.
17) Under Section 126(1) land required or reserved for any public purpose specified in any plan or scheme under the Act, the planning authority at any time or the appropriate authority acquire the land except as otherwise provided in Section 113(A) in the following manner i.e. (a) either by an agreement by paying amount agreed to or (b) in lieu of any such amount by granting the land owner or lessee, FSI/TDR against the area of land surrendered free of cost and free from all encumbrances.
18) Under Section 126(i)(c) the authority may make an application to the State Government for acquiring the land under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2015. Section 126(2) provides that the State Government, on receiving the application is satisfied that the Land Acquisition is required for the public purpose therein specified or the State Government, except cases falling under Section 49 and except as provided under 113A itself, is of the opinion that any land included in any such plan is needed for any public purpose, it may make a declaration to that effect. Such declaration, subject to sub-Section 4 of Section 126 is required to be made within one year from the date of publication of the draft Regional Plan, Development Plan or any other plan or scheme.
19) Section 127 provides lapsing of reservations. Section 127(1) provides that, if any land reserved, allotted or designated for any purpose specified in any plan under the Act is not acquired by agreement within 10 years from the date on which the final regional plan, or final development plan comes into force or if the declaration as required under Section 126(2) or 126(4) is not published within the required period, the owner or any person interested in the land may serve a notice along with the documents showing his title or interest in the said land to the planning authority, development authority or as the case may be the appropriate authority to that effect. If within a period of 24 months of the date of the service of such notice, the land is not acquired or no steps as aforesaid are commenced for its acquisition, reservation, allotment or designation shall be deemed to have lapsed and the land deemed to be released from such reservation, allotment or designation. The land shall then be available to the owner for the purposes of development as otherwise, permissible in the case of the adjacent land under the relevant plan.
20) Further, perusal of Sections 49 and 127 of the MRTP Act, works in, apply to and called in aid at different point in time. The condition to be complied and periods envisaged therein are different. The scheme under Section 49 of the MRTP Act is different as in Section 49 of the MRTP Act, there is no precondition of the period of 10 years to have gone by from the date of the Development Plan or Regional Plan coming into force. The object of the MRTP Act is to ensure a well planned development by purpose and design. The Act itself provide timelines and time bound programs. The property of an individual gives way to the larger public interest and societal interest. As property rights are curtailed and an embargo is put on its complete, rightful or legally permissible development, to balance the said rights, the legislature in its wisdom thought it fit to put timelines and time related restrictions. The intention is to have clarity of purpose and object and to work in a time bound manner. The said timelines in our opinion are statutory and binding and have to be strictly complied with by the authorities and strictly construed by the Courts.
21) Section 127 deals with lapsing of reservations and provides that, the land should be reserved, allotted or designated for a particular purpose for 10 years, and that if after the notice has been served, the land is not acquired or no steps in respect thereof are commenced for its acquisition within a period of 24 months, the reservation, allotment or designation shall deem to be lapsed. Section 127 only lays down the conditions as to when the said Section can be invoked and when reservation is deemed to have lapsed.
22) The intention of Section 127 is clearly to put the planning authority, development authority or the appropriate authority as the case may be, to notice that, if no action has been taken in the past 10 years since the land has been reserved and that if within the next 24 months, from the service of notice the land is not acquired or no steps are commenced for its acquisition, the reservation, allotment or designation shall be deemed to have lapsed.
23) Section 127 refers to two time periods. The first period is a period of 10 years within which the acquisition is to be completed. The period of 10 years is reckoned from the date on which the first Regional Plan or final Development Plan comes into force or if the required declaration under 126(2) or 126(4) is not published in the Official Gazette within such period. The second time period is after the period of 10 years. Section 127 again provides the authority with a time span of 24 months to consider the factual aspect, the planning requirements and ground realities and to take an informed and well considered decision. If the authorities fail to take steps and/or act as are required in law, within the said two time periods, the reservation shall be deemed to have lapsed. It is only after the two time periods as provided under 127 of MRTP Act are complied with and completed, that the rights of the owner are uneclipsed and the reservation deemed to have lapsed and user permitted in accordance to the law.
24) Considering the provisions of Section 127 of the MRTP Act, we are of the opinion that the section only provides for the periods of 10 year and 24 months. The Section by itself does not provide for any particular format of a notice and it is only if the conditions prescribed in Section 127 are complied with and after the Government is put to notice that a reservation can be said to have deemed to said to have lapsed. The MRTP Act or the Rules thereunder do not provide for any format of a notice. The section does not provide any particular format nor stipulates that any particular information or contents has to be incorporated in a particular manner. The mentioning of a shorter period in the notice by the land owner would not prepone the date of deemed lapsing nor postpone the same. As long as the notice issued under Section 127 complies with the requirements of Section 127 of MRTP Act and no action is taken for 24 months from the date of the service of such notice for acquiring the land, the reservation shall be deemed to have lapsed. What is necessary is that the government is put to notice, made aware and has reasonable time of 24 months as prescribed and stipulated in Section 127 of MRTP Act to take steps and act in furtherance of the reservation. The lapsing can only take place after the period of 24 months as is mentioned in the notice.
25) The object of Section 127 of MRTP Acct and the requirements of the notice under Section 127 of MRTP Act, have been very precisely and lucidly explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also by this Court in the following cases.
25.1) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2007) 7 SCC 555 has observed that:
4. Section 127 of the MRTP Act is a special provision and would be attracted in the peculiar facts and circumstances mentioned in the section itself. The section provides a procedure for the landowner to get his land dereserved if steps are not taken by the State Government within the stipulated period and the relief which the owner of the land is entitled to is also provided therein. The steps to be taken for acquisition of land as provided under Section 127 of the MRTP Act have to be taken into consideration keeping in mind the time-lag between the period the land is brought under reservation and inaction on the part of the State to acquire it.
5. Section 127 of the MRTP Act is a unique provision providing remedial measure to the owner of the land whose land is under the planning scheme for a long period of time, which would be interpreted in the facts and circumstances of each individual case. It does not have any universal application and, therefore, the applicability thereof would depend on the facts of each case.
31. Section 127 prescribes two time periods. First, a period of 10 years within which the acquisition of the land reserved, allotted or designated has to be completed by agreement from the date on which a regional plan or development plan comes into force, or the proceedings for acquisition of such land under the MRTP Act or under the LA Act are commenced. Secondly, if the first part of Section 127 is not complied with or no steps are taken, then the second part of Section 127 will come into operation, under which a period of six months is provided from the date on which the notice has been served by the owner within which the land has to be acquired or the steps as aforesaid are to be commenced for its acquisition. The six-month period shall commence from the date the owner or any person interested in the land serves a notice on the planning authority, development authority or appropriate authority expressing his intent claiming dereservation of the land. If neither of the things is done, the reservation shall lapse. If there is no notice by the owner or any person interested, there is no question of lapsing reservation, allotment or designation of the land under the development plan. Second part of Section 127 stipulates that the reservation of the land under a development scheme shall lapse if the land is not acquired or no steps are taken for acquisition of the land within the period of six months from the date of service of the purchase notice. The word “aforesaid” in the collocation of the words “no steps as aforesaid are commenced for its acquisition” obviously refers to the steps contemplated by Section 126 of the MRTP Act.
32. If no proceedings as provided under Section 127 are taken and as a result thereof the reservation of the land lapses, the land shall be released from reservation, allotment or designation and shall be available to the owner for the purpose of development. The availability of the land to the owner for the development would only be for the purpose which is permissible in the case of adjacent land under the relevant plan. Thus, even after the release, the owner cannot utilise the land in whatever manner he deems fit and proper, but its utilisation has to be in conformity with the relevant plan for which the adjacent lands are permitted to be utilised.
54. When we conjointly read Sections 126 and 127 of the MRTP Act, it is apparent that the legislative intent is to expeditiously acquire the land reserved under the Town Planning Scheme and, therefore, various periods have been prescribed for acquisition of the owner's property. The intent and purpose of the provisions of Sections 126 and 127 has been well explained in Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay case [1988 Supp SCC 55] . If the acquisition is left for time immemorial in the hands of the authority concerned by simply making an application to the State Government for acquiring such land under the LA Act, 1894, then the authority will simply move such an application and if no such notification is issued by the State Government for one year of the publication of the draft regional plan under Section 126(2) read with Section 6 of the LA Act, wait for the notification to be issued by the State Government by exercising suo motu power under sub-section (4) of Section 126; and till then no declaration could be made under Section 127 as regards lapsing of reservation and contemplated declaration of land being released and available for the landowner for his utilisation as permitted under Section 127. Section 127 permitted inaction on the part of the acquisition authorities for a period of 10 years for dereservation of the land. Not only that, it gives a further time for either to acquire the land or to take steps for acquisition of the land within a period of six months from the date of service of notice by the landowner for dereservation. The steps towards commencement of the acquisition in such a situation would necessarily be the steps for acquisition and not a step which may not result into acquisition and merely for the purpose of seeking time so that Section 127 does not come into operation.
55. Providing the period of six months after the service of notice clearly indicates the intention of the legislature of an urgency where nothing has been done in regard to the land reserved under the plan for a period of 10 years and the owner is deprived of the utilisation of his land as per the user permissible under the plan. When mandate is given in a section requiring compliance within a particular period, the strict compliance is required therewith as introduction of this section is with legislative intent to balance the power of the State of “eminent domain”. The State possessed the power to take or control the property of the owner for the benefit of public cause, but when the State so acted, it was obliged to compensate the injured upon making just compensation. Compensation provided to the owner is the release of the land for keeping the land under reservation for 10 years without taking any steps for acquisition of the same.
56. The underlying principle envisaged in Section 127 of the MRTP Act is either to utilise the land for the purpose it is reserved in the plan in a given time or let the owner utilise the land for the purpose it is permissible under the town planning scheme. The step taken under the section within the time stipulated should be towards acquisition of land. It is a step of acquisition of land and not step for acquisition of land. It is trite that failure of authorities to take steps which result in actual commencement of acquisition of land cannot be permitted to defeat the purpose and object of the scheme of acquisition under the MRTP Act by merely moving an application requesting the Government to acquire the land, which Government may or may not accept. Any step which may or may not culminate in the step for acquisition cannot be said to be a step towards acquisition.”
25.2) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shrirampur Municipal Council v. Satyabhamabai Bhimaji Dawkher, reported in (2013) 5 SCC 627 has observed that:
43. The expression “no steps as aforesaid” used in Section 127 of the 1966 Act has to be read in the context of the provisions of the 1894 Act and mere passing of a resolution by the Planning Authority or sending of a letter to the Collector or even the State Government cannot be treated as commencement of the proceedings for the acquisition of land under the 1966 Act or the 1894 Act. By enacting Sections 125 to 127 of the 1966 Act, the State Legislature has made a definite departure from the scheme of acquisition enshrined in the 1894 Act. But a holistic reading of these provisions makes it clear that while engrafting the substance of some of the provisions of the 1894 Act in the 1966 Act and leaving out other provisions, the State Legislature has ensured that the landowners/other interested persons, whose land is utilised for execution of the development plan/town planning scheme, etc., are not left high and dry. This is the reason why time-limit of ten years has been prescribed in Section 31(5) and also under Sections 126 and 127 of the 1966 Act for the acquisition of land, with a stipulation that if the land is not acquired within six months of the service of notice under Section 127 or steps are not commenced for acquisition, reservation of the land will be deemed to have lapsed. Shri Naphade's interpretation of the scheme of Sections 126 and 127, if accepted, will lead to absurd results and the landowners will be deprived of their right to use the property for an indefinite period without being paid compensation. That would tantamount to depriving the citizens of their property without the sanction of law and would result in violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution.
25.3) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhabildas v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 784 has observed that:
“14. A purchase notice may be served under Section 49, after the expiry of one year from the date of publication of the plan in question, in which case Section 126(2) of the Act will not apply. Under Section 126(4), the State Government may make a declaration under Section 6 subject to the modification that the market value of the land shall be the market value at the date of the declaration in the Official Gazette made for acquiring the land. But this does not mean that the State Government has carte blanche to do as it pleases. Ordinarily, the State Government is bound to act under Section 126(4) within a reasonable time from the appropriate authority making an application to acquire the land. This should ordinarily be within a period of one year from the date such an application is made. However, if such declaration is not made within the aforesaid period, it will be open for the aggrieved person to move the Court to direct the State Government to make the requisite declaration immediately.
23. On a conspectus of the above authorities, the following position in law emerges:
23.1. In all Section 49 cases, where a purchase notice has been served and is confirmed within the period specified, the appropriate authority must make an application to acquire the land within one year from the date of confirmation of the notice. If it does not do so, the reservation, designation, etc. shall be deemed to have lapsed.
23.2. If within the period specified in Section 49(7), the appropriate authority makes the requisite application, then the State Government may acquire the land by making a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act as set out under Section 126(4), wherein the market value shall be the market value of the land as on the date of Section 6 declaration. Ordinarily, such declaration must be made within 1 year of the date of receipt of the requisite application. In case this is not done, it will be open to the aggrieved person to move the Court to direct the State Government to make the requisite declaration immediately.
23.3. If 10 years have passed from the date of publication of the plan in question, and a purchase notice has been served under Section 127, and no steps have been taken within a period of one year from the date of service of such notice, all proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed. Thus, even in cases covered by Section 49, the drill of Section 126(4) and Section 127 will have to be followed, subsequent to the appropriate authority making an application to acquire the land within the period specified in Section 49(7)
24. The learned counsel appearing for the State has relied upon this Court's judgment in Prakash R. Gupta v. Lonavala Municipal Council [Prakash R. Gupta v. Lonavala Municipal Council, (2009) 1 SCC 514 : (2009) 1 SCC (Civ) 247] , wherein this Court held that the scheme contemplated by Section 49 is totally different from that of Section 127, for the reason that there is no period of 10 years in Section 49 as mentioned in Section 127.
25. This judgment does not carry the matter any further as it is clear that, once an application is made within the requisite period contained in Section 49(7), land acquisition must follow in terms of Section 49(1) to purchase the interest in the land, in accordance with the provisions of the MRTP Act, as indicated above.
26. This Court, in Hasmukhrai V. Mehta v. State of Maharashtra [Hasmukhrai V. Mehta v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 3 SCC 154] , held that where an inordinately long delay takes place from the date on which the appropriate authority makes an application to acquire the land (in that case 20 years), the land in question stands released from reservation.
25.4) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balaji Associates v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2019) 19 SCC 1 has observed that:-
“13. The statutory provision is clear and categorical. Section 127(1), mandates that for an owner whose land is reserved, allotted or designated, in terms of final regional plan or developmental plan, needs to serve a notice to inform the municipality and seek its response concerning its interest in acquiring the land, if he wants his property to be de-reserved. As provided under the section, the time-limit to serve such notice accrues from the end date of stipulated period of ten years. Once such notice is served, the municipality has 24 months to acquire or take steps for acquisition of land. If municipality does not take the required measures in accordance with the aforesaid provision, then the land would be de-reserved and the owner can develop the same in accordance with law. Under sub-section (2) of Section 127 of the Act, the Government is required to publish the de-reserved plots in the Official Gazette.”
25.5) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kolhapur Municipal Corpn. v. Vasant Mahadev Patil, reported in (2022) 5 SCC 758 has observed that:-
“33. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid three decisions, if the land reserved under the draft development plan/development plan is not acquired within a period of ten years from the date of final development plan and thereafter after expiry of ten years, the landowners serve a purchase notice and thereafter within a period of one year, no steps are taken to acquire the land, the reservation/allocation is deemed to have lapsed and the land stand released from such reservation/allocation. As held above, declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act can be said to be taking steps as contemplated under Section 127 of the MRTP Act. After the enactment of the 2013 Act, the declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act is now to be read and/or is substituted by declaration under Section 19 of the 2013 Act.
34. Therefore, if within a period of one year from the date of receipt of purchase notice as per Section 127, a declaration under Section 19 of the 2013 Act is not issued and the land is not acquired, the reservation/allocation under the development plan is deemed to have lapsed and the land is released from such reservation/allocation.
35. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the present case, the first development plan under which the original writ petitioners' land was reserved for public purposes was in the year 1976. Thereafter the second amended development plan was published on 18-12-1999 and came to be implemented from 1-2-2000, under which also the land of the original writ petitioners was reserved for public purposes. But the same had not been acquired for ten years despite the respondents-original writ petitioners having issued a purchase notice dated 2-1-2012 under Section 127 of the MRTP Act for acquisition of the reserved area. A mere resolution being passed by the General Body of the Corporation to acquire the land and sending a letter to the Collector to acquire the land, without any further steps being taken under the Land Acquisition Act, namely, no declaration under Section 6 thereof being issued within a period of one year from the receipt of the said purchase notice, would result in the reservation as deemed to have lapsed.”
25.6) A useful reference can be made to the Judgment of this Court in the case of C.V. Shah v. State of Maharashtra, 2005 reported in SCC OnLine Bom 542 wherein in paragraph 17 this Court has specifically observed that:-
“17. The notice contemplated in section 127 is a notice requiring the Planning Authority or the Development Authority or the Appropriate Authority, as the case may be, to acquire the land which is reserved, allotted or designated for public purpose in the final development plan. The notice is given by the owner or the person having interest in the land that is reserved, allotted or designated for the particular purpose in the development plan because such land has not been acquired by consent or no proceedings for acquisition have commenced under the MRTP Act, 1966 or the Land Acquisition Act within 10 years of the coming into force of final development plan or final regional plan. The very fact that notice is given for acquisition or in other words for compulsory purchase by the owner or the person interested in such land would lead to show that the land is reserved, allotted or designated in the final development plan/final regional plan and that in respect of which no acquisition has taken place by agreement within 10 years from the date of coming into force of the final development plan or final regional plan or in respect of which the acquisition proceedings have not commenced either under the MRTP Act or under the Land Acquisition Act. The expression “serve notice to that effect” cannot be construed to mean that in the notice it is mandatorily required to be stated that the subject land is reserved/designated/allotted in the development plan and that the land has not been acquired within 10 years from the date on which the final regional plan or final development plan came into force or that no proceedings in relation to that land for acquisition has commenced either under the MRTP Act or under the Land Acquisition Act within 10 years. The object of the notice under section 127 is to inform the Authority mentioned therein to acquire the land which is designated, reserved or allotted in the final development plan. The notice need not set out all the facts and details of the reservation/designation or that the said land has not been acquired within 10 years of the coming into force of the final development plan. The word ‘Notice’ denotes an intimation to the party concerned of a particular fact. Notice may take several forms. Form of notice under section 127 is not prescribed. In our view, therefore, the notice under section 127 shall meet the sufficient compliance if notice describes the land in sufficient clarity and requires the Planning Authority or the Development Authority or the appropriate authority, as the case may be to acquire or compulsorily purchase the land so reserved, allotted or designated in the development plan.”
25.7) This Court in the case of Vikramsinh Jaysingrao Ghatge Kagal v. Municipal Council Kagal, reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 1476 has observed that:
“14. ….. By these letters, the petitioner had categorically requested the respondent no. 1 to take possession of the land and to pay compensation to the petitioner in that regard. A perusal of resolution no. 47 dated 22.10.2003 passed by the respondent no. 1 clearly shows that respondent no. 1 treated these letters as an intimation under section 127 of the MRTP Act for acquisition of the land and payment of compensation. By this resolution, the respondent no. 1 expressed its inability to acquire the land due to financial difficulties. Letters dated 7.5.2003, 12.7.2003 and 11.7.2009 issued by the petitioners were not rejected by the respondent no. 1 or for that matter by respondent nos. 3 and 4. In fact it appears that even respondent nos 3 and 4 insisted that further steps be taken to acquire the land which is clear from the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 and 4. For the first time in the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4 a plea has been taken that the letters dated 7.5.2003, 12.7.2004, 11.7.2009 of the petitioner cannot be treated as a notice under section 127 of the MRTP Act. We cannot accept this submission as made on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4 that these letters of the petitioner cannot be treated as a notice under section 127 of the MRTP Act, for two reasons, firstly, the letters clearly call upon the planning authority namely respondent nos. 1 to acquire the land for public purpose under reservation and pay compensation in that regard to the petitioner and secondly the respondents at no point of time rejected these letters on this ground as averred in the reply affidavit. Moreover, for all purposes respondent no. 1 treated these letters to be a notice under section 127 of the MRTP Act and understood the same as a purchase notice as is clear from various letters addressed between the parties. To appreciate this contention as raised by respondent nos. 3 and 4 it would be useful to refer to section 127 of the MRTP Act as it then stood. Section 127 reads thus:
16. A perusal of the aforesaid provision indicates that what is contemplated is intention on the part of the owner of the land or a person interested in the land to serve a notice to the planning authority or appropriate authority to acquire the land for public purpose for which it is reserved. The word ‘notice’ in this provision would contemplate an intimation that the land which is kept under reservation for ten years from the commencement of the development plan or approved plan has not been acquired by an agreement. This section does not contemplate any particular form in which a notice to that effect is required to be given by the owner of the land. To appreciate that as to what meaning can be attributed to the word ‘notice’ as used in section 127 it would be useful to examine the dictionary meaning of the word ‘notice.’
17. The WEBSTER'S ENCYCLOPEDIC UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY of the English language, refers the word “notice” as:—
“information or intelligence to give notice of one's departure (2) and intimation; warning : to serve notice that smoking is not allowed; (3) a note placard, or the like conveying information or a warning : to post a notice about the fire laws (4) a notification of the termination, at a specified time, of an agreement, as for renting or employment, given by one of the parties to the agreement; (5) observation, perception, attention, or heed; a book worthy of notice (6) interested or favourable attention; to take notice of an unusual feature in the construction of a building.” (Emphasis supplied)
18. In the light of the aforesaid meaning of the word ‘notice’ by applying the principles of literal interpretation to the word ‘notice’ as used in section 127 of the MRTP Act it would imply that what is contemplated is an intimation or attention of the authorities by the owner or the person interested in the land under reservation that the land has remained under reservation for a period of 10 years from the commencement of the development/regional plan and that the authority should acquire the reserved land after the receipt of such information/notice.”
26) We have also noted, the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chabildas Versus State of Maharashtra (Supra) in paragraph 23 wherein it is clearly held that, in cases where purchase notice under Section 49 of the MRTP Act has been served and confirmed within the period specified, the appropriate authority is duty bound to make an Application to acquire the said lands within a period of one year from the date of confirmation of the notice. If not done, the reservation, designation, etc., shall be deemed to have been lapsed.
27) If the appropriate authority makes the requisite application as required under Section 49(7) of the MRTP Act, the State Government may acquire the land by making a declaration under the Land Acquisition Act as is specified under Section 126(4) of the MRTP Act. Such declaration is to be made within a period of one year from the date of the receipt of the requisite application. In case this is not done, it is open to the owner/aggrieved person to approach the Court so as to direct the State Government to make the requisite declaration immediately.
28) It is further observed that, if a period of 10 years has passed from the date of the publication of the plan in question and a purchase notice has been served under section 127 of the MRTP Act and no steps have been taken for a period of one year, (now 24 months from the date of service of such notice) all proceedings shall be deemed to have been lapsed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, even in cases covered under Section 49 of the MRTP Act the entire procedure and process of Section 126 (4) and section 127 will have to be followed, subsequent to the appropriate authority making an application to acquire land within a period specified in section 49 (7) of the MRTP Act.
29) In our considered view, in the present case there is total inaction on the part of the Respondent No. 3 and other authorities in taking steps for completing the acquisition. The Respondent No.3 and other authorities have taken no steps whatsoever to complete the acquisition process. Even after the Order dated 12th March 2019, wherein it was held that, there is no lapsing under 49(7) of MRTP Act, no steps have been taken and the lands have only remained under reservation. Even after the notice under Section 127 of MRTP Act was served and even after the period of 24 months was over, no steps have been taken, except offering TDR/FSI. As stated earlier, the Petitioners are not keen on accepting TDR/FSI and they cannot be forced to do so. In our considered view, the land owner cannot be deprived of the land and enjoyment/benefits therefrom for a indefinite period. The MRTP Act provides for the timelines. The timelines envisaged in the MRTP Act have to be complied in letter and spirit by all concerned. The timelines are provided for a reason i.e. to given enough time to the authority to take steps and to let the owner know the time for which he has to wait and for which time public interest will take priority and precedence over the rights of an individual. It is only because of the timelines as provided by the MRTP Act that the acts of the authorities in respect of property/property rights of a individual can be termed as reasonable.
30) The MRTP Act has provided a period of 10 + 2 years to acquire the land which in our opinion is more than sufficient time. A lot can happen during this period of 12 years, including well planned and designed development. The right bestowed on the owner of the Land under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, is a unique remedial measure which is provided by the Act. By Section 127 of the MRTP Act, the right to property of an owner has been reaffirmed by the legislature. In our opinion the timeline have a statutory force and have to be adhered to.
31) There is no doubt that, a reservation will take precedence over the property rights of an individual when a reservation, designation and allocation is made under any development plan for the public purpose or public good. The said reservation shall take precedence over the rights of an individual to property for the simple reason that, the said acquisition is for a larger public good. But the reservation is subject to the rights of the owner under Section 127 of the MRTP Act. The land owner would be compensated in accordance with the law. The law provides for a mechanism and procedure for application for compensation to be made and paid.
32) Pertinent to note that the law provides for a period under which steps have to be taken both by the owner of the land under reservation as well as the authorities. In our opinion, the periods have been provided for a reason i.e to keep a check on the acts of the Government, specifically when they affect or interfere with the property rights of an individual citizen, so as to ensure that the rights of a individual are not kept eclipsed for an indefinite and open ended time frame. One must, including the authorities, at all times remember that, the MRTP Act has been enacted to ensure and make provisions for planning, development and use of land in regions, to make better provisions for preparation of development plans with a view to ensure that town planning schemes are made in a proper manner and their execution is made effective so as to provide for the creation of new towns and to make provisions for compulsory acquisition of land required for public purposes in respect of the plans and for the purposes connected with the matters as aforesaid. The Act provides for safeguards and grants the Government the authority to exercise its rights under the Act in furtherance of the planning objections and for systematic and planned development of a particular area/city. At the same time, by providing prescribed timelines, the owners right to property is also been considered and given due importance and acknowledgment. By providing the timelines, the legislature acknowledges the ownership rights of the property and the right to use and enjoy the property. Considering this object of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, the timelines given under the Act for acquisition has to be construed strictly.
33) Section 127 of the MRTP Act provides for a deemed lapsing of reservation when a purchase notice is given after 10 years from the date of final Development Plan or Regional Plan comes into force and no steps have been taken for 24 months after service of the purchase notice. In our opinion, these timelines are given for specific purpose. The purpose being that the Planning authority has a sufficient time to act upon the development plan and provide the citizens with a planned and proper development, at the same time to balance the rights of the citizens. The Act also provides that after 10 years, the purchase notice may be given by the owner which if not acted upon within 2 years, the reservation is deemed to have lapsed. Thus, under the law, the owner is expected to wait for an outer period of 12 years, during which if no steps for acquisition are taken, the reservation is deemed to have lapsed and the land reverted back to the owner. This is the fine balance which is provided by the legislature vide Section 127 of the MRTP Act which is a unique and noble feature of the MRTP Act.
34) As regards the deeming fiction of lapsing provided under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, a useful reference can be made to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd., reported in (2003) 2 SCC 111 the relevant portion reads as under :-
“27. An owner of a property, subject to reasonable restrictions which may be imposed by the legislature, is entitled to enjoy the property in any manner he likes. A right to use a property in a particular manner or in other words a restriction imposed on user thereof except in the mode and manner laid down under the statute would not be presumed.
32. Sub-section (2) of Section 20, however, carves out an exception to the exercise of powers by the State as regards acquisition of the land for the purpose of carrying out the development of the area in the manner provided for therein; a bare reading whereof leaves no manner of doubt that in the event the land referred to under sub-section (1) of Section 20 thereof is not acquired or proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act are not commenced and further, in the event an owner or a person interested in the land serves a notice in the manner specified therein, certain consequences ensue, namely, the designation of the land shall be deemed to have lapsed. A legal fiction, therefore, has been created in the said provision.
33. The purpose and object of creating a legal fiction in the statute is well known. When a legal fiction is created, it must be given its full effect. In East End Dwellings Co. Ltd. v. Finsbury Borough Council [(1951) 2 All ER 587 : 1952 AC 109 (HL)] Lord Asquith, J. stated the law in the following terms: (All ER p. 599 B-D)
If you are bidden to treat an imaginary state of affairs as real, you must surely, unless prohibited from doing so, also imagine as real the consequences and incidents which, if the putative state of affairs had in fact existed, must inevitably have flowed from or accompanied it. One of these in this case is emancipation from the 1939 level of rents. The statute says that you must imagine a certain state of affairs; it does not say that having done so, you must cause or permit your imagination to boggle when it comes to the inevitable corollaries of that state of affairs.
The said principle has been reiterated by this Court in M. Venugopal v. Divisional Manager, LIC of India [(1994) 2 SCC 323 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 664 : (1994) 27 ATC 84] . See also Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. v. Chief Inspector of Factories [(1998) 5 SCC 738 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1433] , Voltas Ltd. v. Union of India [1995 Supp (2) SCC 498] , Harish Tandon v. ADM, Allahabad [(1995) 1 SCC 537] and G. Viswanathan v. Hon'ble Speaker, T.N. Legislative Assembly [(1996) 2 SCC 353] .
34. The relevant provisions of the Act are absolutely clear, unambiguous and implicit. A plain meaning of the said provisions, in our considered view, would lead to only one conclusion, namely, that in the event a notice is issued by the owner of the land or other person interested therein asking the authority to acquire the land upon expiry of the period specified therein viz. ten years from the date of issuance of final development plan and in the event pursuant to or in furtherance thereof no action for acquisition thereof is taken, the designation shall lapse.
35. This Court in Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay case [1988 Supp SCC 55] in no uncertain terms while construing the provisions of Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 held the period of ten years as reasonable in the following words: (SCC p. 61, para 8)
“8. While the contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the words ‘six months from the date of service of such notice’ in Section 127 of the Act were not susceptible of a literal construction, must be accepted, it must be borne in mind that the period of six months provided by Section 127 upon the expiry of which the reservation of the land under a development plan lapses, is a valuable safeguard to the citizen against arbitrary and irrational executive action. Section 127 of the Act is a fetter upon the power of eminent domain. By enacting Section 127 the legislature has struck a balance between the competing claims of the interests of the general public as regards the rights of an individual.”
It was observed that: (SCC p. 63, para 11)
“The Act lays down the principles of fixation by providing firstly, by the proviso to Section 126(2) that no such declaration under sub-section (2) shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date of publication of the draft regional plan, development plan or any other plan, secondly, by enacting sub-section (4) of Section 126 that if a declaration is not made within the period referred to in sub-section (2), the State Government may make a fresh declaration but, in that event, the market value of the land shall be the market value at the date of the declaration under Section 6 and not the market value at the date of the notification under Section 4, and thirdly, by Section 127 that if any land reserved, allotted or designated for any purpose in any development plan is not acquired by agreement within 10 years from the date on which a final regional plan or development plan comes into force or if proceedings for the acquisition of such land under the Land Acquisition Act are not commenced within such period, such land shall be deemed to be released from such reservation, allotment or designation and become available to the owner for the purpose of development on the failure of the appropriate authority to initiate any steps for its acquisition within a period of six months from the date of service of a notice by the owner or any person interested in the land. It cannot be doubted that a period of 10 years is long enough. The development or the planning authority must take recourse to acquisition with some amount of promptitude in order that the compensation paid to the expropriated owner bears a just relation to the real value of the land as otherwise, the compensation paid for the acquisition would be wholly illusory. Such fetter on statutory powers is in the interest of the general public and the conditions subject to which they can be exercised must be strictly followed.”
It is true that Section 21 of the Act imposes a statutory obligation on the part of the State and the appropriate authorities to revise the development plan and for the said purpose Sections 9 to 20 “so far as may be” would be applicable thereto, but thereby the rights of the owners in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 20 are not taken away.
38. Section 21 does not envisage that despite the fact that in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 20, the designation of land shall lapse, the same, only because a draft revised plan is made, would automatically give rise to revival thereof. Section 20 does not manifest a legislative intent to curtail or take away the right acquired by a landowner under Section 22 of getting the land defreezed. In the event the submission of the learned Solicitor-General is accepted the same would completely render the provisions of Section 20(2) otiose and redundant.
35) In the present case, as stated above the development plan was of the year 1999, when the reservation was announced. The revised plan is of the year 2003. For the past 26 years, the petitioners have waited patiently while making efforts to have their land released from the said reservation. In the year 2007, the notice under Section 49 of the MRTP Act was confirmed. From 2007, no steps have been taken by the authorities for the purpose of the acquisition. Even after the notices dated 3rd October 2022 and 9th November 2022 is given under section 127 of the MRTP Act, no steps have been taken. The notice is not even replied to. The Petitioners have time and again requested the authorities to acquire the land and pay compensation. There has been no response. The Petitioners are not agreeable for the grant of TDR/FSI and cannot be forced to do so. We also find that, there is an inordinately long delay on the part of the authorities in the present matter, as no steps whatsover are taken by the authorities.
35.1) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hasmukhrai V. Mehta v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2015) 3 SCC 154 has observed as under :
“12. We think it pertinent to mention here that APMC, Respondent 5, even after service of notice, has not cared to contest this appeal. Also, we think it relevant to mention that till date no steps appear to have been taken for acquisition of the land in question or to release the same. The land of the appellant, in our opinion, cannot be held up, without any authority of law, as neither the same is purchased till date by the respondent authorities, nor acquired under any law, nor the appellant is being allowed to use the land for the last more than twenty years.
15. In view of the principle of law laid down by this Court, as above, we are of the view that in the present case since neither have steps been taken by the authorities concerned for acquisition of the land, nor is the land of the appellant purchased under purchase notice, nor is he allowed to use the land for the last more than twenty years, the land will have to be released as the appellant cannot be deprived from utilising his property for an indefinite period.
16. Inaction on the part of APMC and bona fide act of the appellant are apparent from the documents on record. In this connection, we think it relevant that from the copy of letter dated 15-7-1991 (Annexure P-2) it is clear that Khopoli Municipal Council granted permission for demarcation of Survey No. 16, Hissa No. 3 and Survey No. 18, Hissa No. 4 of Village Sheel, and allowed that the plot be used by the appellant for residential purpose, subject to other conditions mentioned in the letter. Another document on record, is copy of letter dated 23-4-2001 (Annexure P-8) sent by the Chief Officer of Khopoli Municipal Council to the Chairman, Agriculture Produce Market Committee, wherein at the end of the letter, it is expressly mentioned that if action of acquisition of land was not started within the time-limit mentioned under the MRTP Act, 1966, the Committee (APMC) would be responsible for lapse of reservation of the land. Also, Report dated 21-4-2003 (Annexure P-14) of the Town Planning and Valuation Department addressed to the Principal Secretary of the Urban Development Department of the State of Maharashtra shows that the Committee (APMC) and the State Government were reminded of the fact regarding the requirement of acquisition proceedings and the fact that it is yet not known that any action for land acquisition was taken till the report was submitted or not. Necessity of early action was reiterated in the letter. However, it appears that no one bothered on the issue to take steps for acquisition.
17. In the above circumstances, having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents on record and further considering the law laid down by this Court, as discussed above, we find that the High Court has erred in law in dismissing the writ petition.”
35.2) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohandas v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2020) 12 SCC 215, has observed as under :
“36. In the judgment in Chhabildas v. State of Maharashtra,3 this Court referred to the aforesaid judgment and holds that the said judgment lays down that since more than 20 years have elapsed since the date of purchase notice under Section 49 of the Act, on the facts of that case, the lands will have to be released from acquisition. Thereafter, this Court proceeds to notice that in the said case (Hasmukhrai V. Mehta [Hasmukhrai V. Mehta v. State of Maharashtra,9 no purchase notice under Section 127 of the Act was issued after ten years had elapsed. Thereafter, this Court proceeded to hold that this being the case the judgment was understood as one which was passed under Article 142 of the Constitution of India in view of the inordinate delay of over twenty years. Thereafter, the Court took note of the facts of the case before it and found that fifteen years had passed since the publication of the development plan and over ten years passed since date of purchase notice under Section 49 of the Act. The Court proceeded to invoke Article 142 of the Constitution of India and found that the reservation and the acquisition proposals stood lapsed. However, it was made clear that in future cases that may arise under Section 49 of the Act, the procedure under Section 127 of the Act must be followed which means that after ten years had lapsed, a second purchase notice had to be served under Section 127 of the Act in order that lapsing could take place under the said section.”
36) Right to property is an important constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Article 300A of the Constitution of India ensures that, the right to property is not adversely affected in any manner or impugned except in accordance with law. It has to kept in mind, that right to property is also a human right. The right to property also to a large extent affects the right to life. To restrict the right only in accordance with law, implies that apart from the legal implicates, includes a concept of fairness to all concerned, balancing the rights of concerned parties i.e. Government Authority and the land owners, and at the same time implementing the object of the concerned law, in this case the MRTP Act. Right to property may be affected, though in accordance with law, for a public purpose or need. The property rights of owners cannot be kept in abeyance indefinitely by labelling the said land as reserved land. Depriving landowners to use property or enjoy the financial benefits arising out of the use and development of the said property cannot be indefinitely postponed under the garb of acquisition/reservation of land. Though reservation and acquisition of land is given priority and gets precedence over the rights of an individual in respect of the property, the same has to be within the four corners of the law. It cannot be that landowners are deprived of their properties for an indefinite period (like in the present case for a period of 26 years) without being paid any compensation. This according to us would be a clear violation of section 300A of the Constitution of India. The Government cannot after restricting the use of land, keep the reservation for an indefinite period.
37) The right to property and the importance of following the timelines, has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nirmiti Developers v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 438 has observed that:
“43. In the last, we may refer to the decision of this Court in the case of Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke and Chemicals Ltd., (2007) 8 SCC 705 more particularly paras 53, 54 and 55 respectively therein:
“53. The right of property is now considered to be not only constitutional right but also a human right.
54. The Declaration of Human Rights (1789) enunciates under Article 17
“since the right to property is inviolable and sacred, no one may be deprived thereof, unless public necessity, legally ascertained, obviously requires it and just and prior indemnity has been paid”.
Further under Article 217 (IIII) of 10th December, 1948, adopted in the General Assembly Resolution it is stated that : (i) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. (ii) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
55. Earlier human rights were existed to the claim of individuals right to health, right to livelihood, right to shelter and employment etc. but now human rights have started gaining a multifacet approach. Now property rights are also incorporated within the definition of human rights. Even claim of adverse possession has to be read in consonance with human rights. As President John Adams (17971801) put it,:
“Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty.”
Adding,
“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence”.”
50. 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 prior to the amendment by Maharashtra Act 42 of 2015. Such timeline is sacrosanct and has to be adhered to by the State or by the authorities under the State.”
38) We have noted that, the petitioner’s lands have been in acquisition/reservation since September 1999. Respondent No. 3 has candidly admitted that, it does not have funds to acquire land. It is specifically stated by Respondent No. 3 in its written submissions that, the average allocation for land acquisition by Respondent No. 3 is only about 0.35% of the Corporation’s annual budget. The estimated cost of acquisition of the Petitioners land is approximately 4,18,00,00,000/- Crores which constitutes 15.50% of the Corporation’s annual budgetary allocation. Though, the Respondent No. 3 has offered TDR/FSI, the Petitioner has categorically refused to accept the same. Allocation of TDR/FSI in lieu of payment of compensation can be done under Section 126 of the MRTP Act only by way of agreement and consensus, in the present matter, there is none.
38.1) A useful reference can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balkrishna H. Sawant and Ors. Vs. Sangli, Miraj & Kupwad City Municipal reported in 2005 3 SCC 61 wherein it has been observed that:-
“5. Counsel for the Corporation states that the resolution of 20-7-2002 stands and the respondent Corporation is bound by it and holds itself bound even today, meaning thereby, that the land shown as reserved in the development plan is not required by the Municipal Corporation as it does not have the resources to develop the said land and construct a high school and playground over it. The stand of the State Government even before the High Court was that the reservation had lapsed. It is, therefore, apparent that the reservation will serve no purpose except to cause harassment to the appellant without any corresponding benefit to the respondent Corporation. Ultimately, the respondent Corporation may not take any steps to get the land acquired, and in that event, by efflux of time the reservation may again lapse.
6. With a view to avoid all these delays and complications, we quash the reservation in respect of the land in question owned by the appellant and allow this appeal. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court is accordingly set aside and the writ petition preferred by the respondent Corporation is dismissed.”
38.2) Similarly this Court in the case of Vastalabai Panditrao Lad v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 111 has observed that:_
“5. From the narration of the facts referred to above, it is abundantly clear that in the development plan the land of the petitioners was designated as reservation No. 1 for open space. No effective steps for acquisition of the said land had been initiated by respondent No. 3. Initially respondent No. 3 Municipal Council had forwarded a proposal to the Collector for acquisition of the said land. The proposal undoubtedly was submitted within the period but the Municipal Council thereafter passed a resolution, which is undisputed, for dereservation of the said site as the financial position of the Municipal Council did not permit it to go ahead with the acquisition. In the light of the aforesaid facts, it is undisputed that the Municipal Council have no funds to proceed with the acquisition and has not taken any concrete steps and in fact has expressed its inability to proceed with the acquisition, though a proposal had initially been submitted. In the light of that, therefore, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the reservation in the development plan pertaining to the land of the petitioners has lapsed. In the background of the fact that we have held that the reservation in the development plan relating to the land of the petitioners has lapsed, the impugned orders passed in the appeal of the petitioners, therefore, are unsustainable.
6. In the light thereof, therefore, this petition is allowed and the impugned orders in appeal are hereby quashed and set aside. It is held that the reservation of the land of the petitioners designated as reservation No. 1 (open space) has lapsed. In the light of that, therefore, the petitioners are at liberty to take further steps in accordance with law in respect of the development of the land of the petitioners. In the event such development plans are submitted, the same shall be dealt with and necessary orders in accordance with law be passed.”
Considering the specific and categorical statement made by the Respondent No. 3 in respect of the financial constraints and impediment, we find that, continuing the present reservation would be unfair, unjust and contrary to law.
39) Considering the facts of the present case we are of the firm view that, the reservation is deemed to have lapsed. The record indicates that, the Authority has not taken steps for the acquisition of the land nor is the land of the Petitioners being purchased under the purchase notice. Since the year 1999, i.e. for the past more than 26 years, the Petitioners land is under reservation and the Petitioners are denied the opportunity to enjoy the property nor have they able to develop their lands to the fullest potential. It would be unjust and unfair to deprive the Petitioners from utilizing their properties for an indefinite period on the basis of such reservation. In addition to the said facts, it is also an admitted position that, the Respondent No.3 do not have the financial wherewithal to pay compensation for the said land.
39.1) The Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of M.S. Nally Bharat Engineering Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar, reported in(1990) 2 SCC 48 has observed as under :
“13. What is thus important in the modern administration is the fairness of procedure with elimination of element of arbitrariness. The State functionaries must act fairly and reasonably. That is, however, not the same thing to state that they must act judicially or quasi-judicially. In Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India [(1973) 1 SCC 380 : (SCC p. 387, para 8 : SCR p. 30)
“The administrative authority concerned should act fairly, impartially and reasonably. Where administrative officers are concerned, the duty is not so much to act judicially as to act fairly.”
15. In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner [(1978) 1 SCC 405, 434 : Krishna Iyer, J. commented that natural justice though varying is the soul of the rule as fair play in action. It extends to both the fields of judicial and administrative. The administrative power in a democratic set up is not allergic to fairness in action and discretionary executive justice cannot degenerate into unilateral injustice. Good administration demands fair play in action and this simple desideratum is the fount of natural justice. Fairness is flexible and it is intended for improving the quality of government by injecting fair play into its wheels.
20. ….. Fairness, in our opinion, is a fundamental principle of good administration. It is a rule to ensure the vast power in the modern State is not abused but properly exercised. The State power is used for proper and not for improper purposes. The authority is not misguided by extraneous or irrelevant considerations. Fairness is also a principle to ensure that statutory authority arrives at a just decision either in promoting the interest or affecting the rights of persons. To use the time hallowed phrase “that justice should not only be done but be seen to be done” is the essence of fairness equally applicable to administrative authorities. Fairness is thus a prime test for proper and good administration. It has no set form or procedure. It depends upon the facts of each case. …”
40) As regards the contention of the Respondent No.3 that, they are ready to assign to TDR/FSI in lieu of the cash compensation, it is settled law that, the land owner cannot be forced or compelled to accept the TDR as compensation. If TDR/FSI is not acceptable by agreement and consensus the land owner ought to be compensated by payment of money. The acceptance of TDR or FSI can only be by way of an agreement/understanding between the authority and the concerned land owner. Granting TDR/FSI has to be by way of agreement and consensus and the said option is available only if both parties agree to the proposal. This position of law has been confirmed by this Court in the case of Shree Vinayak Builders & Developers v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1562.
“16. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has also referred to the decision in Yashaswin Enterprises v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 MhLJ Online 56 = Writ Petition No. 5396 of 2021 and other connected petitions wherein the Division Bench of this Court at Aurangabad Bench has held that the mode of acquiring the property contemplated under section 127(1) is as provided under section 126(2) and (4) of the of the MRTP Act. The reason behind the same appears to be that under section 126(1)(a) of the Act, 1966, the acquisition is by an agreement between the parties. Same is true about section 126(1)(b). For an agreement there has to be a consensus ad idem between the parties. For Clause (a) both the parties on their own volition would agree for an amount of compensation. Clause (b) of section 126 can be invoked if the owner or lessee, as the case may be, surrenders the area of land free of cost and free from all encumbrances. In case the land owner or the lessee, as the case may be, surrenders the land free of cost and free from all encumbrances, then in lieu of the amount agreed to, the Planning Authority, Development Authority or Appropriate Authority may award FSI or TDR and further additional FSI or TDR, if any, against the development or construction of the amenity on the surrendered land at his cost. If the parties do not arrive at an agreement for an amount of compensation as contemplated under clause (a), so also the land owner does not surrender or offer to surrender the land as contemplated under clause (b), then the third option is provided to the Authority by making an application to the Government for acquiring such land under the provisions of the Act, 2003. The Division bench has observed that the three modes under section 126(1) are distinct and separate and do not overlap. Section 126(1)(a) is operative only if the properties are acquired by an agreement, i.e. both the parties on their own volition agree for a consideration in the nature of an amount. The land owner or the lessee, as the case may, has also got the option to surrender the land free of cost and free of encumbrances and upon surrender of the land he is entitled for FSI or TDR against the area of the land surrendered, and also further additional FSI or TDR against the development or construction of the amenities on the surrendered land at his cost. In case land is not acquired by an agreement between the parties or the land owner does not surrender or offer to surrender the land, then the only option left to the Planning Authority is to make an application to the State Government for acquiring such land under the provisions of the Act, 2013 as contemplated under section 126(1)(c) of the MRTP Act.
17. “While concurring with the above proposition, we would like to emphasize that the mode of acquisition of land under section 126(1)(a) and (b) of the MRTP Act is by ‘an “agreement”. The word agreement connotes offer and acceptance and signifies that the agreement is not an unilateral act but a bilateral act which is concluded with communication of acceptance of the offer. Thus, Acquisition of land reserved for public purpose under section 126(1)(a) and (b) cannot be by any unilateral proposal of the Acquiring Authority to acquire the land with an offer of compensation or FSI/TDR. It is a mutual agreement between the Acquiring Authority and the land owner whereunder the land is acquired by the concerned authority by agreement either by paying an amount agreed to or by granting, in lieu of any agreed amount, FSI or TDR against the area of land surrendered free of cost, and free of all encumbrances. That being so, the modes of acquisition of land under section 126(1)(a) and (b) of the MRTP Act, can be resorted to only when there is a consensus between the parties; when the parties are ad idem and not when there is dissension; not when they are at variance. That means these modes of acquisition are essentially at the choice of either of the parties and not just the acquiring authority, and are taken to their logical end when the consensus is arrived at between these parties. In the absence of such concord, the only option available to the Acquiring Authority is to take recourse to section 126(1)(c) of the Act and make an application to the State Government under the provisions 2013 Act.”
40.1) A useful reference could also be made to the Judgment of this Court in the case of Pagariya Realtors v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 4749 wherein this Court after referring to the paragraph 8, 9 and 10 has observed as under:-
“8. On a plain reading of Section 127(1) of the Act of 1966, it is clear that the petitioner has satisfied the condition of serving of a notice alongwith the documents showing his title or interest on the respondents as the lands were not acquired by agreement within ten years from the date on which final development plan came into force. The respondent ought to have acquired the land or taken steps towards acquisition within 24 months i.e. before September 30, 2018.
9. The petitioner has rightly relied on the recent judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Chhabildas and Mohandas (supra). In the former judgment, the Apex Court at Length discussed ‘steps towards the acquisition’ and the same view has been reiterated in the latter judgment. It is well settled that the steps towards acquisition commences when active steps are taken for the acquisition of land which leads to publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with the provisions of Section 126 of the Act of 1966. The same has been held in various judgments of the Courts.
10. Further, it is also no more res integra that merely offering TDR would not be in compliance of Section 127 of the Act of 1966 and it is not obligatory on the petitioner to accept the TDR in lieu of the compensation. The full bench judgment of this Court in Shree Vinayak Builders and Developers, Nagpur (supra) relied on by the petitioner has held that mere grant of approval or passing of resolution by the Authorities concerned for grant of TDR/FSI in lieu of monetary compensation is not a step towards the acquisition of land and the land owner cannot be compelled to accept the same. The Full Bench has also considered the issue of what constitutes a step commencing the acquisition proceeding elaborately.”
41) As regards the claim of Respondent No. 7 in respect of the land admeasuring 7450 square meters as a protected tenant from the land owned by Petitioner No. 2. it is made clear that, we are not making any observations in respect of the said land or the rival claims of Respondent No. 7 and the Petitioners. We have been informed that there are various litigations pending between the Petitioners and Respondent No. 7 in respect of the said land admeasuring 7450 square meters. A Writ Petition bearing No. 10338 of 2009 is pending wherein by Order dated 27th August 2010, the parties were directed to maintain status quo. We are also informed that, there are revenue proceedings between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 7 in respect of the said land. It is made clear that, the present order does not deal with the said area of 7450 sq. mtrs nor any observation made in the present Order be construed to be made in respect of the said land or the proceedings between the Petitioners and Respondent No.7.
42) Considering the facts and the discussions/observations made, we hold that Section 49 and 127 of the MRTP Act are different, distinct and operate in different situations. We hold that Section 127 can be resorted to even after taking resort to Section 49 of the MRTP Act, so long as the conditions enumerated in Section 127 are complied with. We hold that, there is no specific form/format of the notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act. What is required is the fact of putting the authority to notice is clearly borne out from the notice. The authorities under the grab of a reservation or doing some act for acquisition of land, cannot for a indefinite period continue the reservation. Once the timelines prescribed in Section 127 of the MRTP Act are complied with and the authorities have not acted by acquiring the land by payment of compensation or granting TDR/FSI under consensual agreement, the reservation shall immediately lapse and the owner shall be at liberty to fully use and enjoy the lands as may be permissible in respect of the adjacent land as per Section 127 of the MRTP Act.
43) Considering the aforesaid facts of the case and as the consequences of the aforesaid discussions and observations we deem it appropriate to allow the present Writ Petition. We hereby declare that, the D.P. reservations imposed on the subject lands i.e. 36,662.43 sq. mtrs, except the Respondent claim of ownership in area admeasuring 7450 sq. meters as protected tenant of Petitioner No.2 in the said land of 36,662.43 sq. mtrs. bearing Gut No. 59 part, is released from the said reservation of public park, Police Station and HCMTR and that, the said land is available to the Petitioners for the purposes of development as is permissible in respect of the adjacent land under Section 127(1) of the MRTP Act, 1966. The Respondent No.1 is directed to notify the lapsing of the reservation of Public Park, Police Station and HCMTR by issuing a notification to that effect under Section 127 of the MRTP Act. The Reservations in respect of Public Park, Police Station and HCMTR on the subject land bearing survey No. 59 part are accordingly quashed.
44) In view of the above, the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (c), (c-1) and (c-2).