Page 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1387 OF 2008

Hasmukhrai V. Metha … Appellant Versus

State of Maharashtra and others …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Prafulla C. Pant, J.

This appeal is directed against order dated 17.7.2007  

whereby  the  High  Court  of  Judicature  at  Bombay   has  

discussed  the  Writ  Petition  No.  2266  of  2004,  seeking  

direction either  to  release the appellant’s  land situated in  

Village Sheel,  District  Raigad in  terms of  Section  49 read  

with Section 127 of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning  

Act,  1966  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  “MRTP  Act”),   from  

reservation and  allow the appellant to develop the property  

for  residential  use,  or,  in  alternative,  to  declare  the  

appellant’s  land  stood  acquired  for  the  purposes  of

Page 2

2

Agricultural  Produce Market  Committee (for  short  “APMC”)  

and Truck Terminal (for which it was reserved).

2. In brief, factual matrix of the case is that the appellant  

Hasmukhrai Vanmalidas Mehta owns land in Survey No. 16,  

Hissa No.3 and Survey No. 18, Hissa No. 4, situated in Village  

Sheel,  Taluka  Khopoli,  District  Raigad  in  the  State  of  

Maharashtra.   On  14.02.1990,  he  applied  to  the  Planning  

Authority  seeking permission  to  carry  out  development  of  

land with necessary documents as required under Section 44  

of  MRTP Act.   The appellant  was  granted  permission  and  

issued  commencement  certificate  dated  03.04.1990  by  

respondent No.4  (Chief Officer, Khapoli Municipal Council)  

under  Section  45  of  said  Act  read  with  Section  89(4)  of  

Maharashtra  Municipalities  Act,  1965.   The  Development  

Plan  of  Khopoli  Municipal  Council  was  sanctioned  by  the  

Government,  vide  Order  No.  TPS/1476/32/UD-5  dated  

17.12.1976.  It is pleaded on behalf of the appellant that the  

land in question, belonging to the appellant, was included in  

the residential zone in the sanctioned plan of 15.1.1977.  It is

Page 3

3

further pleaded that on 15.7.1991, the Chief Town Planning  

Officer granted ‘No Objection Certificate’ for utilization of the  

land  for  non-agricultural  purpose.  From  communication  

dated 15.7.1991, made by respondent No. 4  it reveals that  

Development  Plan  for  residential  purpose was  sanctioned,  

and  commencement  certificate  was  issued  by  him  on  

19.6.1992 for construction. Development charges amounting  

Rs.1,92,490/-  were  also  recovered  from  the  appellant  by  

getting served notice dated 31.07.1998, for use of land for  

residential purpose.  

3.  However, on 14.1.1999 the appellant was informed by  

the respondent No. 4 that a fresh development scheme of  

Khopoli town has been prepared which includes appellant’s  

survey Nos.  16/3 and 18/4 as a part  of  land reserved for  

Agriculture Produce Market Yard (for short “APM Yard”) and  

for  Truck  Terminal.   Reacting  to  it,  on  17.8.2000  the  

appellant served a purchase notice under Section 49 of the  

MRTP  Act  as  the  land  in  question  was  already  in  the  

sanctioned  plan  left  in  1977  for  residential  purposes.   In

Page 4

4

reply  to  this,  Director,  Town  Planning,  vide  his  

communication dated 16.3.2001, though confirmed receiving  

of the purchase notice, but directed the appellant to contact  

APMC, Khopoli.   The Director, Town Planning wrote separate  

letter to Chief Officer of Municipal Council of Khopoli that the  

proceedings  of  land  acquisition  for  APM Yard  be  initiated  

within  one  year  from  16.3.2001  failing  which  it  would  

amount to release of the land from the reservation for APM  

Yard.  Consequently, Khopoli Municipal Council wrote a letter  

on  23.4.2001  to  APMC  to  immediately  initiate  acquisition  

proceedings and to act  on purchase notice served by the  

appellant.   The  appellant  himself  wrote  a  letter  to  

respondent  No.  5  (APMC)  requesting  for  initiation  of  

acquisition  proceedings.   Another  letter  was  sent  on  

6.7.2001 by the respondent No. 4 to respondent No. 5 calling  

upon  it  to  take  necessary  steps  for  acquisition  of  the  

appellant’s  land.   However,  no  steps  were  taken  for  one  

year, i.e., by 15.3.2001.  Respondent No. 4 again reminded  

respondent No. 5 between September, 2001 to March, 2002  

to complete the acquisition proceedings.  When nothing was

Page 5

5

done, the appellant again on 5.7.2002 sought revalidation of  

the permission for construction earlier allowed to him.  After  

running  from  pillar  to  post,  the  appellant  made  a  

representation  dated  13.2.2003  to  the  Secretary,  Urban  

Development,  Government  of  Maharashtra,  on  the  above  

issue,  but to no avail.   Ultimately,  the appellant filed writ  

petition in February, 2004 complaining that the respondents  

are  neither  acquiring  land  belonging  to  the  appellant  nor  

releasing  the  same  from  reservation  for  APM  Yard,  and  

sought necessary directions from the High Court.

4. By  impugned  order  the  High  Court,  by  its  two  

paragraphs order, dismissed the writ petition by observing  

that  notice  dated  17.8.2000  given  by  the  writ  petitioner  

(present appellant) invoking the provisions of Section 49 of  

the MRTP Act is of no help as the Development Scheme by  

then was not  finalized.  It is further observed by the High  

Court that Section 127 of the MRTP Act contemplates that  

the  land  be  acquired  by  the  Planning  Authority  within  a  

period of 10 years after reservation, but in the present case,

Page 6

6

plan was finalized in March, 2003, as such before the expiry  

of ten years elapsed, no benefit can be given to him.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length  

and perused the papers on record.

6. Before further discussion, we think it just and proper to  

quote the relevant provisions of law applicable to this case.  

Section 49 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning  

Act, 1966 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

Page 7

7

(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  clauses (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 expected 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

Page 8

8

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  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.

(6) ******* (deleted by Mah. Act 6 of 1976)

(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

Page 9

9

owner for the purpose of development otherwise  permissible in the case of adjacent land, under the  relevant plan.”

7. Another  relevant  provision,  i.e.,  Section  127  of  the  

MRTP  Act  (as  it  existed  prior  to  amendment  in  2009)  is  

reproduced as under: -  

“127.  Lapsing  of  reservation:-  If  any  land  reserved,  allotted or designated for  any purpose  specified in any plan under this Act is not acquired  by agreement within ten years from the date on  which a final Regional plan, or final Development  plan  comes  into  force  or  if  proceedings  for  the  acquisition of  such land under this  Act  or  under  the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), are not  commenced within such period, the owner or any  person interested in the land may serve notice on  the Planning Authority, Development Authority or  as the case may be, Appropriate Authority to that  effect; and if within six months from the date of  the service of such notice, the land is not acquired  or  no steps as  aforesaid  are  commenced for  its  acquisition,  the  reservation,  allotment  or  designation shall be deemed to have lapsed, and  thereupon  the  land  shall  be  deemed  to  be  released  from  such  reservation,  allotment  or  designation  and  shall  become  available  to  the  owner  for  the  purpose  of  development  as  otherwise, permissible in the case of adjacent land  under the relevant plan.”

Page 10

10

8. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the High  

Court has erred in law in dismissing the writ petition in which  

the appellant had fairly sought direction either to acquire the  

land or to release the same.  It is further submitted that the  

land cannot be held up for indefinite period, and the State is  

bound either to acquire the land within the period provided  

under Section 126 read with Section 127 of the MRTP Act,  or  

to release the same.

9. In reply to this, on behalf of the State, it is contended  

that notice could have been served by the writ petitioner/  

appellant only after expiry of ten years of the Development  

Plan, and the respondents were not required to take note of  

the purchase notice given by the appellant within the period  

of ten years.

10. Above reply, in our opinion does not answer as to why  

steps  have not  been taken for  acquisition  for  last  twenty  

years.

Page 11

11

11. We  think  it  pertinent  to  mention  here  that  APMC,  

respondent No. 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 appellant,  in our opinion, can not be held up,  

without  any  authority  of  law,  as  neither  the  same  is  

purchased till  date by respondent authorities, nor acquired  

under any law, nor the appellant is being allowed to use the  

land for last more than twenty years.

12. In  T. Vijayalakshmi and others  v.  Town Planning  

Member and another1,  this Court,  in paragraphs 13 and  

15, has observed as under: -

“13. Town Planning legislations are regulatory in  nature.  The right  to  property  of  a  person would  include  a  right  to  construct  a  building.  Such  a  right,  however,  can be restricted by reason of a  legislation.  In  terms  of  the  provisions  of  the  Karnataka  Town  and  Country  Planning  Act,  a   comprehensive development plan was prepared. It  indisputably  is  still  in  force.  Whether  the  amendments  to  the  said  comprehensive  development  plan  as  proposed  by  the  Authority  would ultimately be accepted by the State or not  is  uncertain.  It  is  yet  to  apply  its  mind.  

1 (2006) 8 SCC 502

Page 12

12

Amendments to a development plan must conform  to  the  provisions  of  the  Act.  As  noticed  hereinbefore,  the  State  has  called  for  objection  from the citizens. Ecological balance no doubt is  required  to  be  maintained  and  the  courts  while  interpreting  a  statute  should  bestow  serious  consideration  in  this  behalf,  but  ecological  aspects, it is trite, are ordinarily a part of the town  planning legislation. If in the legislation itself or in  the statute governing the field, ecological aspects  have not been taken into consideration keeping in  view the future need, the State and the Authority  must take the blame therefor.  We must assume  that these aspects of the matter were taken into  consideration by the Authority and the State. But  the rights of the parties cannot be intermeddled  with so long as an appropriate amendment in the  legislation is not brought into force.

Xxx xxx xxx

15. The law in this  behalf  is  explicit.  Right  of a  person  to  construct  residential  houses  in  the  residential area is a valuable right. The said right  can  only  be  regulated  in  terms  of  a  regulatory  statute but  unless  there exists  a  clear  provision  the same cannot be taken away. It is also a trite  law that the building plans are required to be dealt  with in terms of the existing law. Determination of  such  a  question  cannot  be  postponed  far  less  taken away. Doctrine of legitimate expectation in  a case of this nature would have a role to play.”

13. In  Girnar  Traders  v.  State  of  Maharashtra  and  

others2, this Court, per majority, in paragraphs 32, 54 and  

56 has held as under: - 2 (2007) 7 SCC 555

Page 13

13

“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.

Xxx xxx xxx

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 v. Dr. Hakimwadi Tenants Assn.3.  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  

3 1988 Supp SCC 55

Page 14

14

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.

Xxx xxx xxx

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

Page 15

15

acquisition cannot be said to  be a step towards  acquisition.”

14. 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 steps have been taken by the authorities concerned  

for acquisition of the land, nor the land of the appellant is  

purchased under purchase notice, nor he is allowed to use  

the land for last more than twenty years, the land will have  

to  be  released  as  the  appellant  cannot  be  deprived  from  

utilizing his property for an indefinite period.  

15. Inaction  on  the  part  of  APMC  and  bonafide  act  of  

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 the  

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

Page 16

16

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 not  started within time limit mentioned  

under  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  Town  Planning  and  

Valuation Department addressed to the Principal Secretary  

of  the  Urban  Development  Department   of  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.

16. In  the  above  circumstances,  having  considered  

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and after  

going  through  the  documents  on  record  and  further

Page 17

17

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.   

17. Accordingly,  we  allow  the  appeal  and  set  aside  the  

impugned order passed by the High Court.  Since no steps  

appear to have been taken till date for last more than twenty  

years either for acquisition or for purchase of the land under  

MRTP Act, 1966 by the authorities concerned, as such, the  

land  in  question  stands  released  from  reservation  under  

Section 127 of the MRTP Act.

………………………………J. [Vikramajit Sen]

………………………………J.                                                  [Prafulla C. Pant]

New Delhi; December 03, 2014.