Prakash R. Gupta Vs.
Lonavala Municipal Council & Ors.  INSC 2063 (2 December 2008)
JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.7801 OF 2002 Prakash R. Gupta ...Appellant(s)
Versus Lonavala Municipal Council & Ors. ...Respondent(s) ORDER Heard
learned counsel for the parties.
This appeal has been
filed against the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court,
dated 9th November, 2001. The detailed facts are given in the impugned judgment
of the High Court and it is not necessary for us to repeat the same here except
where necessary for deciding the appeal.
The appellant is the
owner of the land in dispute. His land was reserved under a development plan
for a certain college but that college got disaffiliated.
Thereafter, a minor
modification under Section 37 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning
Act, 1966 (in short, 'the Act') was issued and it was said to be allotted to
the present respondent No.3.
However, it appears
that the land was not acquired within the ten year period mentioned in Section
127 of the ..2/- -2- aforesaid Act. Section 127 states as under:
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 such land under this
Act or under the Land Acquisition Act, 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."
It is not disputed
that the land was not acquired within ten years from the date on which the final
Regional plan or final Development plan came into force and no proceedings for
acquisition of such land under the Land Acquisition Act were commenced within
the aforesaid period of ten years. After the said period of ten years, the
appellant, who was the owner of the land, served a notice on respondent No.1 as
required by Section 127 calling upon the said authority to acquire the said
land within six months or take steps within that period, but neither was the
land ...3/- -3- acquired within the further period of six months nor were any
steps taken to acquire it. Hence, in our opinion, the reservation lapsed and
the land has to be released in favour of the appellant.
The High Court,
however, has taken the view that in view of Section 49 of the Act, there is no
lapse of the reservation. We do not agree. In our opinion, the scheme
contemplated by Section 49 is totally different from that contemplated by
Section 127. In Section 49, there is no period of ten years as mentioned in
Section 127. In Section 49, the owner has to satisfy one of the three
conditions mentioned therein which is not so in Section 127. Thus, reference to
Section 49 by the High Court was, in our opinion, totally misconceived and
In view of the above,
we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and
direct that the land in question shall be released forthwith in favour of the
No order as to costs.