Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL  NO. 1999 OF 2008

PRAFULLA C. DAVE & ORS.      ...  APPELLANT (S)

VERSUS

MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER & ORS.      ... RESPONDENT (S)

J U D G M E N T

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. The question arising for  determination in  the present  

appeal has been succinctly formulated by the High Court in  

the following terms:

“Whether,  the  plan  first  prepared  and  notified  under  

Section 21 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning  

Act, 1966 (‘MRTP Act’) is the final development plan and the  

1

Page 2

plan prepared under Section 38 is only a revision of the final  

development plan proposed under Section 21 of the MRTP  

Act  and  as  such,  the  notice  contemplated  under  Section  

127(2) of the MRTP Act and the period prescribed is from the  

publication  of  the  development  plan  first  notified  under  

Section  21  and  not  the  revised  development  plan  under  

Section  38?”  

2.      To answer the aforesaid question, a brief conspectus of  

the  statutory  framework  under  the  Maharashtra  Regional  

and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the  

‘MRTP Act’) will be necessary.

3. The preamble to the Act suggests that the MRTP Act  

was enacted, inter alia,  “…….to make better provisions for  

the  preparation  of  development  plans  with  a  view  to  

ensuring that town planning schemes are made in a proper  

manner and their executions is made effective………..” .

4. Section  2  of  the  MRTP  Act  contains  the  definition  

clause. A Development Plan is defined by sub-section (9) of  

Section  2  to  mean  “a  plan  for  the  development  or  re-

2

Page 3

development of the area within the jurisdiction of a Planning  

Authority [and includes revision of a development plan and  

proposals of a special planning authority for development of  

land within its jurisdiction]”.  

5. Chapter  III,  inter  alia,  deals  with  preparation,  

submission  and sanction  of  development  plan.  Section  21  

provides  that  not  later  than  three  years  after  

commencement  of  the  Act  every  planning  authority  shall  

carry out a survey, prepare an existing land-use map and  

prepare  a  draft  development  plan  for  the  area  within  its  

jurisdiction. A publication in the official  gazette or in such  

other manner as may be prescribed stating that the draft  

development plan has been prepared is also contemplated.  

The draft development plan is required to be submitted by  

the State Government for sanction.      

6. Section  22  provides  for  the  contents  of  the  

development plan and is in the following terms :-

“Contents  of  Development  Plan:-  A  Development  plan  shall  generally  indicate  the  manner in which the use of land in the area of the  Planning  Authority  shall  be  regulated,  and  also  

3

Page 4

indicate the manner in which the development of  land therein shall  be carried out.  In particular,  it  shall provide so far as may be necessary for all or  any of the following matters, that is to say,-

(a)  proposals  for  allocating  the  use  of  land  for  purposes,  such  as  residential,  industrial,  commercial, agricultural, recreational;

(b)  proposals  for  designation  of  land  for  public  purpose,  such  as  schools,  colleges  and  other  educational institutions, medical and public health  institutions,  markets,  social  welfare  and  cultural  institutions,  theatres  and  places  for  public  entertainment, or public assembly, museums, art  galleries, religious buildings and government and  other public buildings as may from time to time be  approved by the State Government;

(c)  proposals  for  designation  of  areas  for  open  spaces,  playgrounds,  stadia,  zoological  gardens,  green  belts,  nature  reserves,  sanctuaries  and  dairies;

(d) transports and communications, such as roads,  high-ways,  park  ways,  railways,  water-ways,  canals and airports, including their extension and  development;

(e)  water  supply,  drainage,  sewerage,  sewage  disposal,  other  public  utilities,  amenities  and  services including electricity and gas;

(f) reservation of land for community facilities and  services;

(g)  proposals  for  designation of  sites for  service  industries,  industrial  estates  and  any  other  development on an extensive scale;

4

Page 5

(h) preservation, conservation and development of  areas of natural scenery and landscape;

(i) preservation of features, structures or places of  historical,  natural,  architectural  and  scientific  interest and educational  value 1[and of heritage  buildings and heritage precincts];

(j)  proposals  for  flood  control  and  prevention  of  river pollution;

(k) proposals of the Central Government, a State  Government,  Planning  Authority  or  public  utility  undertaking or any other authority established by  law  for  designation  of  land  as  subject  to  acquisition for public purpose or as specified in a  Development plan, having regard to the provisions  of section 14 or for development or for securing  use  of  the  land  in  the  manner  provided  by  or  under this Act;

(l)  the  filling  up  or  reclamation  of  low  lying,  swampy  or  unhealthy  areas,  or  levelling  up  of  land;

(m)  provisions  for  permission  to  be  granted  for  controlling  and  regulating  the  use  and  development  of  land  within  the  jurisdiction  of  a  local  authority  including  imposition  of  fees,  charges  and  premium,  at  such  rate  as  may  be  fixed for conditions and restrictions in regard to by  the State Government or the Planning Authority,  from time to time, for grant of an additional Floor  Space Index or for the special permissions or for  the use of discretionary powers under the relevant  Development  Control  Regulations,  and  also  for  imposition of conditions and restrictions in regard  to  the  open  space  to  be  maintained  about  buildings,  the  percentage  of  building  area  for  a  

5

Page 6

plot, the location, number, size, height, number of  storeys and character of buildings and density of  population allowed in a specified area, the use and  purposes to which buildings or specified areas of  land may or  may not  be  appropriated,  the  sub- division  of  plots  the  discontinuance  of  objectionable  users  of  land  in  any  area  in  reasonable periods, parking space and loading and  unloading space for any building and the sizes of  projections  and  advertisement  signs  and  boardings  and  other  matters  as  may  be  considered necessary for carrying out the objects  of this Act.”

7. Section  23  which  really  ought  to  have  preceded  the  

earlier Sections i.e. Sections 21 and 22 contemplate that a  

planning  authority,  before  carrying  out  a  survey  and  

preparing an existing land-use map,  shall  by a Resolution  

make a declaration of its intention to prepare a development  

plan.   Such declaration is  required to be published in the  

official  gazette  and  also  in  the  local  newspaper  inviting  

suggestions or objections from the public within a period of  

not less than sixty days from the date of publication in the  

official  gazette.  The  appointment  of  a  planning  officer  to  

carry out a survey and prepare an existing land-use map is  

provided for by Section 24 of the MRTP Act. Under Section  

6

Page 7

25,  the  planning  authority  or  the  officer  appointed  by  it  

under  Section 24 is  required to carry out a survey of  the  

lands  and  prepare  an  existing  land-use  map  within  six  

months  from  the  date  of  publication  of  the  intention  to  

prepare  a  development  plan.  Section  26  provides  for  

preparation of the draft development plan within two years  

from the date of notice under Section 23 and publication of  

the same in  the official  gazette  calling for  objections  and  

suggestions to be submitted within thirty days from the date  

of publication in the gazette.  Such objections are required to  

be forwarded to a Planning Committee constituted under the  

Act for consideration and report. Modifications or changes in  

the draft development plan may be made by the planning  

authority  after  receipt  of  the  report  of  the  Planning  

Committee  which  modifications  are  again  required  to  be  

notified in the official gazette for information to the public.  

Thereafter  under  Section  30,  the  draft  development  plan  

alongwith a list of modifications or changes proposed in the  

said  draft  plan  under  Section  28(4)  is  required  to  be  

submitted to the State Government within a period of  six  

7

Page 8

months. Sanction of the State Government is to be accorded  

under Section 31 within six months from the date of receipt  

of  the draft  plan from the planning authority.  It  would be  

significant to note that under sub-section (5) of Section 31 if  

a  development  plan  contains  any  proposal  for  the  

designation of any land for a purpose specified in Section  

22(b)(c) (already extracted) and such land does not vest in  

the  planning  authority,  the  State  Government  shall  not  

include such land in a development plan unless it is satisfied  

that the planning authority will be able to acquire such land  

either  by  private  agreement  or  by  compulsory  acquisition  

not  later  than  ten  years  from  the  date  on  which  the  

development plan comes into operation.      

8. Section 37 of the MRTP Act provides for modification of  

a  final  development  plan  of  such  nature  which  will  not  

change the character of the plan. Such modification has to  

be  preceded  by  notice  in  the  official  gazette  inviting  

objections  and  suggestions.  Hearing  of  such  objections  is  

contemplated  by  Section  37(1)  before  submission  of  the  

proposal  for  modification  to  the  State  Government  for  

8

Page 9

sanction.  Section  37  also  contemplates  suo  moto  

modification by State Government subject to observance of  

the  same  procedure.  Under  sub-section  (2)  the  State  

Government  may  sanction  a  modification  which  is  again  

required to be published in the official gazette.

9. Section  38  deals  with  the  revision  of  a  final  

development  plan,  already  in  operation.   Such  revision  is  

contemplated on the expiry of  20 years from the date of  

coming into operation of a development plan.  As the scope,  

purport and effect of the provisions contained in Section 38  

is  the bone of  controversy in  the present case,  the same  

may be extracted below.  

“38. Revision of Development Plan

At least  once in  [twenty years]  from the date on  which a Development plan has come into operation,  and  where  a  Development  plan  is  sanctioned  in  parts, then at least once in [twenty years] from the  date on which the last part has come into operation,  a  Planning  Authority  may  [and  shall  at  any  time  when so directed by the State Government], revise  the Development Plan [(either wholly, or the parts  separately)] after carrying out, if necessary, a fresh  survey and preparing an existing land-use map of  the area within its jurisdiction, and the provisions of  sections 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30 and 31 shall,  

9

Page 10

so  far  as  they  can  be  made applicable,  apply  in  respect of such revision of the Development plan.”

10. Section 38 clearly sets out the point of time at which a  

revision  of  an approved plan  already  in  operation  can  be  

made.   Such  revision  may  involve  a  fresh  survey  and  

preparation of fresh land-use map. Section 38 further makes  

it clear that in revision of a development plan the provisions  

of Sections 22 to 31 except Section 29, so far as they can be  

made applicable, shall apply.  

11. The other  relevant  provisions  of  the MRTP Act  which  

would require to be noticed are Sections 126 and 127. Under  

Section 126 after publication of a development plan if any  

land is required or reserved for any of the public purposes  

specified in such plan, the planning authority or any other  

appropriate  authority  may  acquire  the  land,  inter  alia,  by  

making an application to the State Government for acquiring  

such land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. There are  

two other modes of acquisition, namely, by agreement and  

by allotment of transferable development rights. The same,  

however,  would  not  be  relevant  for  the  purpose  of  the  

1

Page 11

present case and, therefore, need not be noticed. Acquisition  

of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is to be made  

by issuing a declaration in the official gazette in the manner  

provided  in  Section  6  of  the  Land  Acquisition  Act,  1894.  

Such  declaration  is  required  to  be  made  within  one  year  

from the  publication  of  the  development  plan.   However,  

sub-section  (4)  provides  that  if  such  a  declaration  is  not  

made within a period specified or if the other contingencies  

provided  for  in  the  said  sub-section  exist,  the  State  

Government may make a fresh declaration in which event  

the market value of the land will be determined as on the  

date of the fresh declaration under Section 6 of the Land  

Acquisition Act.   

12. Section  127  deals  with  lapsing  of  reservations  and  

being at the core of the controversy arising in the present  

case, will require to be extracted below-   

“Lapsing  of  reservations:-  If  any  land  reserved,  allotted  or  designated  for  any  purpose specified in any plan under this Act  is  not  acquired  by  agreement  within  ten  years from the date on which a final Regional  plan,  or  final  Development  plan comes into  force or if proceedings for the acquisition of  

1

Page 12

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.”  

13. Section 127 of the MRTP Act is free from any ambiguity.  

If the land reserved, allotted or designated for any purpose  

specified  in  any  plan  under  the  Act  is  not  acquired  by  

agreement within ten years from the date on which the final  

regional  or  development  plan  had  come  into  force  or  if  

proceedings for the acquisition of such land under the MRTP  

Act or under the Land Acquisition Act are not commenced  

within the said period of ten years, the owner or any person  

interested in  the land may serve notice to the concerned  

1

Page 13

authority and if within six months from the date of service of  

such notice the land is not acquired or no steps are taken for  

its  acquisition, the reservation, allotment or designation is  

deemed  to  have  lapsed  and  the  land  is  deemed  to  be  

released from such reservation, allotment or designation and  

becomes available to the owner.  

14. In the present case the land belonging to the appellants  

measure  about  83  Ares  and  is  situated  at  village  Aundh,  

District Pune, Maharashtra.  The said land was included in a  

development  plan of  the  city  of  Pune notified  on 8th July,  

1966 and shown to be kept under reservation for a public  

purpose i.e. garden. The land was not acquired by resorting  

to any of the modes under Section 126 at any point of time  

prior to the sanction of a revised development plan dated 5th  

January, 1987 which continued the reservation of the land  

for  the  same  purpose  i.e.  garden.  The  final  revised  

development plan dated 5th January, 1987 was preceded by  

a draft revised plan which was published in the year 1982.  

No notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act was issued by  

the owner and any person interested in the land and served  

1

Page 14

on any authority under the Act at any point of time prior to  

the purchase of the land by the appellants from the original  

owners in the year 1989. After such purchase, the appellants  

filed Writ  Petition No.  5467 of  1989 on 29th August,  1989  

before  the  Bombay  High  Court  for  deletion  and  de-

reservation of the land. Thereafter, the appellants served a  

notice  dated  5th October,  1989  under  Section  127  of  the  

MRTP Act  calling  upon  the  Pune  Municipal  Corporation  to  

acquire the land within a period of six months from the date  

of  receipt  of  the  notice.  As  no  action  was  taken  by  the  

Municipal  Corporation,  the  appellants  submitted  a  layout  

plan  to  the  Corporation  on  5th October,  1990  which  was  

rejected  on  29th October,  1990.  Against  the  aforesaid  

rejection made by the Corporation, the appellants filed an  

appeal under Section 47 of the MRTP Act. In the meantime,  

the  writ  petition  i.e.  W.P  No.5467  of  1989  filed  by  the  

appellants was disposed of with a direction that the appeal  

filed by the appellants be expeditiously decided.  The said  

appeal came to be rejected on 14th July, 2003 on the ground  

that  notice  under  Section  127  of  the  MRTP  Act  was  

1

Page 15

premature  as  it  was  issued  before  the  completion  of  the  

period of ten years from the date of the revised development  

plan.  

15. Assailing the said order passed in the appeal, the writ  

petition was filed wherein the issue arising was formulated  

by the High Court in the terms already set out. The answer  

provided  by  the  High  Court  in  the  writ  proceeding  being  

adverse to the appellants, the instant appeal has been filed.  

16. We  have  heard  Shri  Jayant  Bhushan,  learned  senior  

counsel  appearing  for  the  appellants  and  Shri  Shekhar  

Naphade,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  

respondents.  

17. On behalf  of  the  appellants  it  is  contended  that  the  

period of ten years under Section 126 of the Act has to be  

reckoned from the date of coming into force of the initial  

final  development  plan  and  not  the  revised  development  

plan  made  under  Section  38  of  the  Act.  Any  other  view,  

according  to  the  learned  counsel,  would  amount  to  a  

perpetual  deprivation  of  the  owner  of  land  which,  at  the  

1

Page 16

same time is also not being put to use for the public purpose  

specified in the development plan. Section 127 of the Act, it  

is contended, is a beneficial provision in so far as the land  

owner is concerned calling for a liberal interpretation of its  

effect.  Learned  counsel  has  also  drawn  attention  to  the  

provisions  of  Section  31(5)  of  the  MRTP  Act  which  

contemplates that in so far as reservation of land for public  

purposes specified in sub-section (b) and (c) of Section 21 is  

concerned inclusion of such land in the Development Plan  

should  not  be  made  unless  the  authority  is  reasonably  

confident of acquiring the land within a period of ten years.  

Learned  counsel  has,  therefore,  submitted  that  the  

legislative intent was to give the authority under the Act a  

maximum of ten years to acquire the land earmarked for a  

public  purpose  or  at  least  to  initiate  steps  for  such  

acquisition  failing  which  the  reservation  would  lapse.  

Reliance  has  been  placed  on  a  decision  of  this  Court  in  

Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd.&  

Ors.1 in support of the contentions made by them.

1 2003 (2) SCC 111

1

Page 17

18. In reply, Shri Naphade has submitted that the scheme  

of the Act would suggest that a revised plan prepared under  

Section  38  tantamounts  to  a  complete  development  plan  

contemplated in Sections 21 to 30 of the Act. The legislative  

scheme takes into account that development is a dynamic  

process and cannot be frozen by strict prescriptions of time.  

Once the final development plan is revised under Section 38  

the period of ten years would necessarily run from the date  

of  coming  into  force  of  such  revised  plan.  Any  other  

interpretation,  according  to  the  learned  counsel,  would  

render all provisions of the Act dealing with the revised plan  

otiose. Shri  Naphade has also  argued that  in  the event  a  

revised plan under Section 38 is sanctioned and brought into  

force the relevant date for  determination of compensation  

would stand transposed to the fresh dates of the declaration  

under  Section  6  of  the  Land  Acquisition  Act  which  would  

ensure payment of a fair compensation to the land owner.  

This is by virtue of Section 126(4) of the Act and, according  

to Shri Naphade, is how the balance between public interest  

and the interest of the land owner is maintained under the  

1

Page 18

provisions of the Act. In so far as the decision in Bhavnagar  

University (supra)  is  concerned,  Shri  Naphade  has  

submitted that there are certain provisions of the MRTP Act  

which are not embodied in the provisions of the Gujarat Act  

that  was  considered  in  Bhavnagar  University (supra).  

Specifically  it  is  pointed out  that  the provisions  similar  to  

Sections  37,  49  and  50   of  the  MRTP  Act  which  provide  

alternative escape routes to the land owners are absent in  

the  Gujarat  Act.  It  is  on  the  aforesaid  broad  basis  the  

decision in Bhavnagar University (supra) has been sought  

to be distinguished.      

19. Under  Section  127  of  the  MRTP  Act,  reservation,  

allotment or designation of any land for any public purpose  

specified in a development plan is deemed to have lapsed  

and such land is deemed to be released only after notice on  

the  appropriate  authority  is  served  calling  upon  such  

authority  either  to  acquire  the  land  by  agreement  or  to  

initiate proceedings for acquisition of the land either under  

the MRTP Act or under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and  

the said authority fails  to  comply with the demand raised  

1

Page 19

thereunder. Such notice can be issued by the owner or any  

person interested in the land only if the land is not acquired  

or provisions for acquisition is not initiated within ten years  

from the date on which the final development plan had come  

into force.  After service of notice by the land owner or the  

person interested, a mandatory period of six months has to  

elapse within which time the authority can still  initiate the  

necessary action.  Section 127 of the MRTP Act or any other  

provision  of  the  said  Act  does  not  provide  for  automatic  

lapsing of the acquisition, reservation or designation of the  

land included in any development plan on the expiry of ten  

years. On the contrary upon expiry of the said period of ten  

years, the land owner or the person interested is mandated  

by  the  statute  to  take  certain  positive  steps  i.e.  to  

issue/serve a notice and there must occur a corresponding  

failure on the part of the authority to take requisite steps as  

demanded  therein  in  order  to  bring  into  effect  the  

consequences  contemplated  by  Section  127.  What  would  

happen in a situation where the land owner or the person  

interested remains silent and in the meantime a revised plan  

1

Page 20

under Section 38 comes into effect is  not very difficult  to  

fathom. Obviously, the period of ten years under Section 127  

has to get a fresh lease of life of another ten years. To deny  

such  a  result  would  amount  to  putting  a  halt  on  the  

operation  of  Section  38  and  rendering  the  entire  of  the  

provisions with regard to preparation and publication of the  

revised plan otiose and nugatory. To hold that the inactivity  

on the part of the authority i.e. failure to acquire the land for  

ten  years  would  automatically  have  the  effect  of  the  

reservation  etc.  lapsing  would  be  contrary  to  the  clearly  

evident  legislative  intent.  In  this  regard  it  cannot  be  

overlooked that  under  Section 38 a  revised  plan  is  to  be  

prepared on the expiry of a period of 20 years from date of  

coming into  force of  the  approved plan  under  Section 31  

whereas Section 127 contemplates a period of 10 years with  

effect from the same date for the consequences provided for  

therein to take effect. The statute, therefore, contemplates  

the continuance of a reservation made for a public purpose  

in a final development plan beyond a period of ten years.  

Such  continuance  would  get  interdicted  only  upon  the  

2

Page 21

happening of the events contemplated by Section 127 i.e.  

giving/service of notice by the land owner to the authority to  

acquire the land and the failure of the authority to so act. It  

is,  therefore,  clear  that  the  lapsing  of  the  reservation,  

allotment or designation under Section 127 can happen only  

on the happening of the contingencies mentioned in the said  

section. If the land owner or the person interested himself  

remains inactive, the provisions of the Act dealing with the  

preparation of revised plan under Section 38 will have full  

play.  Action on the part of the land owner or the person  

interested as required under Section 127 must be anterior in  

point of time to the preparation of the revised plan. Delayed  

action on the part of the land owner, that is, after the revised  

plan has been finalized and published will not invalidate the  

reservation,  allotment  or  designation that  may have been  

made or continued in the revised plan. This, according to us,  

would be the correct position in law which has, in fact, been  

clarified  in  Municipal  Corporation  of  Greater  Bombay  

2

Page 22

vs. Dr. Hakimwadi Tenants’ Association & Ors.2 in the  

following terms :

“If there is no such notice by the owner or any  person, there is no question of the reservation,  allotment  or  designation  of  the  land  under  a  development plan of having lapsed. It  a fortiori  follows  that  in  the  absence  of  a  valid  notice  under  Section 127,  there is  no question of  the  land  becoming  available  to  the  owner  for  the  purpose of development or otherwise.”

20. In fact the views expressed in Bhavnagar University  

(supra) in para 34 is to the same effect:

“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.”

21. The facts of the present case makes it plainly clear that  

the notice under Section 127 by the appellants was issued  

only two years after the final revised plan under Section 38  2 1988 Supp. SCC 55

2

Page 23

had come into  operation.  The  rejection  of  the  appellants’  

plea before the appellate authority under Section 47 of the  

Act as well as the rejection of the writ petition filed by the  

appellants  before  the  Bombay  High  Court  was,  therefore,  

fully justified. Consequently, we find no reason to interfere  

with the impugned order dated 20th September, 2007 passed  

by  the  High  Court  of  Bombay.  Accordingly,  the  appeal  is  

dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the  

case, we make no order as to costs.                              

..........………………………J. [RANJAN GOGOI]

…..........……………………J. [R.K. AGRAWAL]

NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 03, 2014.

2