Reservation over Amravati plot is held to have lapsed by efflux of time; appeals allowed

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan heard Civil Appeal Nos. 3238‑3239 of 2025 arising from a challenge to the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) order that had disposed of writ petitions filed by the purchasers of a vacant plot in Amravati, seeking a declaration that a reservation under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) had lapsed and that acquisition proceedings be completed. The appeals raised the question whether the reservation for a private school stood released under the statutory scheme of Sections 49, 126 and 127 of the MRTP Act after prolonged inaction by the authorities.

The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court order and declared that the reservation on the plot had lapsed by efflux of time under Sections 126 and 127 of the MRTP Act. The Court recorded that after service of a purchase notice under Section 127 no steps for acquisition were commenced within the statutory period and therefore the reservation stood released. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “In the result, the appeals are allowed and the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside. It is declared that the reservation of the plot in question could be said to have lapsed by efflux of time in view of the provisions under Sections 126 and 127 of the MRTP Act respectively.” The judgment further noted that “it does not make any good sense to keep a plot reserved in a development plan for past 33 years” and recorded the High Court’s earlier observation that “Section 49 is not meant for getting the property de‑reserved and then to wait for appropriate time to sell it in open market.” The Court observed that, on the facts, the reservation could be said to have lapsed on 13‑08‑2015 and that the subsequent sale to the appellants on 30‑12‑2015 therefore occurred when the land stood released from reservation. Pending applications stood disposed of.

Background The dispute concerned a vacant plot measuring 50,138 sq.ft in Survey No.81/3 in Mouza Rajapeth, Amravati, which originally formed part of a larger 2.47 hectare development. A revised development plan of 25‑02‑1993 showed the plot as reserved for a private school in favour of respondent No.5. The original owners served a purchase notice under Section 49 on 04‑07‑2006; the notice was confirmed on 02‑01‑2007, and the appropriate authority had to make an application to acquire the land within one year of confirmation. No acquisition or steps to acquire were effectively completed by 02‑01‑2008. After prolonged inaction, the original owners served a further notice under Section 127 on 13‑08‑2014. The appellants purchased the plot by registered sale deed on 30‑12‑2015. They filed writ petitions on 16‑03‑2016 seeking a declaration that the reservation had lapsed and, alternatively, directions for deposit of compensation and completion of acquisition.

The Bombay High Court, while noting that the original owners had issued a purchase notice under Section 49 and that no development followed for several years, disposed of the petitions with liberty to the purchasers to take steps as open to them in law. On appeal, the Supreme Court analysed the statutory scheme of Sections 49, 126 and 127 and the authorities of this Court (including Girnar Traders, Chhabildas and related decisions) that explained that after ten years from publication of a plan a notice under Section 127 was necessary and that, if acquisition steps were not commenced within the stipulated period, the reservation would lapse. Applying those principles to the facts, the Court concluded that the authorities had not taken the requisite steps after the Section 127 notice and that the reservation lapsed on 13‑08‑2015. The Court observed that, given the gross delay, it would have been open to invoke Article 142 to do complete justice, but that statutory lapse under Sections 126 and 127 rendered such exercise unnecessary. The appeals were allowed and the High Court order was set aside; pending applications were disposed.

Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3238‑3239 OF 2025 (@ SLP (C) Nos.23308‑23309/2017) Case Title: Nirmiti Developers through its Partners & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Gagan Sanghi, learned counsel For the Respondent(s): Mr. Suhaskumar Kadam, learned counsel (for Respondent No.3 – Corporation)