Bombay High Court Holds That Land Reservation Under MRTP Act Lapses If No Acquisition Steps Are Taken: “Mere Payment for Measurement Charges Is Not a Step Towards Acquisition; Authorities Cannot Deprive Landowners of Their Rights Indefinitely”

Court’s Decision

The Bombay High Court ruled that the reservation imposed on the petitioner’s land under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act, 1966, had lapsed due to the failure of the municipal council to take legally recognized steps for acquisition. The court held that merely paying ₹18,000 for measurement charges did not constitute an “effective step” toward acquisition, as required by law. The State Government was directed to notify the lapsing of reservation in the Official Gazette within six weeks, and the petitioner was permitted to develop the land without obstruction from the authorities.

Facts

1. The petitioner’s father owned a plot of land in Yashawant Nagar, Vita, which was earmarked for a public garden under the 1986 development plan of the Vita Municipal Council.
2. In 2013, residents requested the municipal council to remove the reservation on this land since houses had already been built on part of it.
3. In response, the municipal council passed a unanimous resolution recommending the deletion of the reservation and forwarded it to the concerned authorities for approval.
4. The petitioner issued a purchase notice in 2012 under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, demanding that the municipal council either:
   • Acquire the land for the reserved purpose, or
   • Remove the reservation, allowing him to use it as per the general zoning laws.
5. The municipal council did not respond, prompting the petitioner to file Writ Petition No. 1964 of 2014. However, this was dismissed because the court found the notice premature, as the development plan had been approved in 2009, and 10 years had not yet elapsed.
6. The 10-year period expired on October 30, 2019, without any acquisition taking place.
7. The petitioner issued fresh notices in January and March 2020, under Section 127, requesting the authorities to act.
8. The municipal council:
   • Did not initiate acquisition within the legally prescribed time.
   • Instead, paid ₹18,000 for measurement charges in November 2021.
   • Offered Transferable Development Rights (TDR) instead of acquiring the land.
9. The petitioner rejected the TDR offer and filed a new writ petition in April 2022, seeking a declaration that the reservation had lapsed.

Issues Considered by the Court

1. Does the payment of ₹18,000 for land measurement constitute a valid “step” towards acquisition under Section 127 of the MRTP Act?
2. Has the reservation on the petitioner’s land lapsed due to the authorities’ failure to act within the prescribed timeline?
3. Is the petitioner entitled to develop the land, or does the reservation still prevent such use?

Petitioner’s Arguments

• Failure to Acquire the Land: The municipal council failed to acquire the land within 10 years, which, under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, meant the reservation had automatically lapsed.
• Mere Payment is Not Acquisition: The payment of ₹18,000 for measurement charges was not an acquisition step, as it did not result in actual land acquisition.
• Right to Develop the Land: Since no acquisition took place, the petitioner had a legal right to use the land in accordance with regular zoning laws.
• Notification is a Ministerial Act: The government was obligated to notify the lapsing of the reservation, and any delay in doing so could not prevent the petitioner from exercising his rights.

Respondent’s Arguments (Municipal Council’s Defense)

• The municipal council claimed that by depositing ₹18,000 for measurement charges, it had initiated the acquisition process.
• It argued that offering TDR was a valid response to the petitioner’s purchase notice.
• The municipal council also relied on inter-office correspondence to show that it had taken steps toward acquisition.

Analysis of the Law

• Section 127 of the MRTP Act states that if a public authority does not acquire land within 10 years, the landowner can serve a purchase notice.
• If the authority does not act within 24 months (previously 6 months before amendment), the reservation is deemed to have lapsed by operation of law.
• The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that a mere resolution, correspondence, or deposit of fees does not constitute acquisition.
• A valid acquisition step requires:
  • Issuance of a Section 6 declaration under the Land Acquisition Act.
  • Actual initiation of compulsory land acquisition proceedings.

Precedent Analysis (Supreme Court & High Court Rulings)

1. Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra (2007)

• The Supreme Court held that only issuing a Section 6 notification under the Land Acquisition Act constitutes a step toward acquisition.
• Paying fees or internal communications do not qualify.

2. Shrirampur Municipal Council v. Satyabhamabai Bhimaji Dawkher (2013)

• Letters, resolutions, or informal steps by authorities do not constitute acquisition.
• If no acquisition takes place within the statutory period, the reservation lapses automatically.

3. Uday Madhavrao Patwardhan v. Sangli Miraj & Kupwad Municipal Corporation (2015)

• Landowners do not need a court declaration to confirm lapsing of reservation.
• Government delay in publishing the notification does not affect the owner’s rights.

4. Shivgonda Anna Patil v. Sangli Miraj & Kupwad City Municipal Corporation (2023)

• The court reiterated that authorities cannot use bureaucratic delays to deprive landowners of their rights.
• Once the reservation lapses, it cannot be revived.

Court’s Reasoning

• The deposit of ₹18,000 for measurement charges did not qualify as a valid acquisition step.
• The municipal council failed to acquire the land within 24 months, meaning the reservation had automatically lapsed.
• The municipal council had no authority to prevent the petitioner from developing the land.
• The government was bound to publish the lapse of reservation in the Official Gazette within six weeks.
• The delay in notification could not be used to obstruct the petitioner’s rights.

Conclusion

• The court allowed the writ petition, ruling that:
  • The reservation on the land had lapsed.
  • The State Government must publish the lapse in the Official Gazette within six weeks.
  • The petitioner was free to develop the land in accordance with zoning regulations.
• The judgment reinforced property rights under the MRTP Act and emphasized that bureaucratic inaction cannot override statutory provisions.

Implications of the Judgment

• Clear Legal Standard: Reinforces that steps toward acquisition must be substantial and legally recognized.
• Limits Bureaucratic Delays: Municipalities cannot delay acquisition indefinitely while keeping landowners in limbo.
• Strengthens Property Rights: Once reservation lapses, landowners regain full rights over their property.
• Encourages Legal Challenges: Landowners can assert their rights if municipal authorities fail to act in a timely manner.