Supreme Court of India
LAXMIKANT & ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. on 23 March 2022
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 297
LAXMIKANT & ORS.
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1965 of 2022)
MARCH 23, 2022
[HEMANT GUPTA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 – s.126– Land reserved for public purpose in 2002 – After expiry of tenyears, land owners served notice calling upon the respondents toacquire the land but still the land was not acquired – Land ownersfiled writ petition before High Court seeking direction to respondentto treat their land as released from the development plan and thatreservation for playground be declared to have lapsed to the extentof the land owned by them – High Court held that the reservation ofland in the development plan stood lapsed as no declaration unders.126 was published, however, the Planning Authority was givenone year time to acquire the land reserved – Instant appeal filed byland owners against the restriction of one year put by High Courtgiving additional time to respondents to acquire the land – Held:Once an embargo has been put on a land owner not to use the landin a particular manner, the said restriction cannot be kept open-ended for indefinite period – The Statute has provided a period often years to acquire the land under s.126 of the Act – Additionalone year is granted to the land owner to serve a notice for acquisitionprior to the amendment by Maharashtra Act No. 42 of 2015 – Suchtime-line is sacrosanct and has to be adhered to by the State or bythe Authorities under the State – The State or its functionaries cannotbe directed to acquire the land as the acquisition is on its satisfactionthat the land is required for a public purpose – If the State wasinactive for long number of years, the Courts would not issuedirection for acquisition of land, which is exercise of power of theState to invoke its rights of eminent domain – In view thereof,direction to acquire land within a period of one year is in factcontravening the time-line fixed under the Statute – Consequently,direction to acquire the land within one year is set aside – Landacquisition.
297
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
298SUPREME COURT REPORTS
AAllowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: Once the Act does not contemplate any furtherperiod for acquisition, the Court cannot grant additional periodfor acquisition of land. The land was reserved for a public purposeway back in 2002. By such reservation, the land owner could notBuse the land for any other purpose for ten years. After the expiryof ten years, the land owner had served a notice calling upon therespondents to acquire the land but still the land was not acquired.The land owner cannot be deprived of the use of the land foryears together. Once an embargo has been put on a land ownernot to use the land in a particular manner, the said restrictionCcannot be kept open-ended for indefinite period. The Statute hasprovided a period of ten years to acquire the land under Section126 of the Act. Additional one year is granted to the land ownerto serve a notice for acquisition prior to the amendment byMaharashtra Act No. 42 of 2015. Such time line is sacrosanct and Dhas to be adhered to by the State or by the Authorities under theState. The State or its functionaries cannot be directed to acquirethe land as the acquisition is on its satisfaction that the land isrequired for a public purpose. If the State was inactive for longnumber of years, the Courts would not issue direction foracquisition of land, which is exercise of power of the State toEinvoke its rights of eminent domain. In view thereof, the directionto acquire land within a period of one year is in fact contraveningthe time line fixed under the Statute. [Paras 7, 8, 9][301-B-F]
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. v.Hiraman Sitaram Deorukhar& Ors. (2019) 14 SCCF411; Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa & Ors.(1991) 4 SCC 54 : [1991] 3 SCR 102 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2019) 14 SCC 411referred toPara 1
[1991] 3 SCR 102 referred toPara 5GCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.1965of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.08.2021 of the High Courtof Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.6266of 2019.H
Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, Rana Sandeep Bussa, GagandeepSharma, Omkar J. Deshpande, Ms. Ruchi Rathi, Advs. for the Appellants.
Aniruddha Joshi, Rahul Chitnis, Sachin Patil, Aaditya A. Pande,Geo Joseph, Ms. Shwetal Shepal, Shirish K. Deshpande, Ms. RuchaPravin Mandlik, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HEMANT GUPTA, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
3
Decisions referred to
In this index
2
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order dated 6.8.2021passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad,holding that the reservation of land in the Development Plan stands lapsedas no declaration under Section 126 of the Maharashtra Regional andTown Planning Act, 1966[1] was published. However, the Planning Authoritywas given one year time to acquire the land once reserved relying uponthe judgment of this Court reported as Municipal Corporation ofGreater Mumbai & Ors. v. Hiraman Sitaram Deorukhar & Ors.[2].
2. A final Development Plan was published under Section 31(6)of the Act on 2.1.2002 which came into force on 18.2.2002 in respect ofland including the land owned by the appellants such as Latur ReservationSite bearing No. 217 for playground. The appellants purchased the landbearing Plot Nos. 1, 2, 9 & 10 admeasuring 1394.05 square meters outof Survey No. 73, admeasuring 6500 square meters on 21.11.2002.Though the Development Plan was finalized, but the same was neverimplemented nor any action was taken for acquisition of the land underthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894. After expiry of ten years, the appellantsissued notice on 16.8.2016 under Section 127 of the Act so as to purchasethe reserved land within one year of the date of the notice. Such noticewas acknowledged by the respondent Municipal Corporation on 20/22.8.2016 to submit measuring plan showing reservation thereon includingthe area owned by the appellants.
3. It was thereafter that the appellants filed a writ petition beforethe High Court for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents totreat the land of the appellants bearing Survey No. 73 as released fromthe Development Plan of Latur Municipal Corporation and that reservationof Site No. 217 for playground be declared to have lapsed to the extent 1 For short, the ‘Act’
2 (2019) 14 SCC 411
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Aof the land owned by the appellants and that the land is available for theresidential use of the appellants. In the counter affidavit filed by theMunicipal Corporation, it was inter alia submitted that the proposal wassubmitted to respondent No. 2 i.e., the Collector, Latur to take effectivesteps for acquiring the land bearing Survey No. 73 as the land wasreserved for playground. The proposal was returned by the CompetentBAuthority but no effective decision has been taken over the said proposal.
4. Thus, it was beyond dispute that the land once included in theDevelopment Plan under Section 31(6) of the Act was not acquiredwithin the period of ten years and within additional period of one yearafter purchase notice was submitted by the appellants on 16.8.2016 and,Cin fact, not till the writ petition was decided by the High Court. TheMunicipal Corporation is not aggrieved against the declaration grantedby the High Court of the fact that the reservation of the land standslapsed. It is only the land owner who has come in appeal before thisCourt against the restriction of one year put by the High Court givingDadditional time to respondents to acquire the land.
5. This Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbaiwas examining the reservation of land for a garden in a DevelopmentPlan in the year 1966 but the same was not acquired even after purchasenotice was served by the land owner. However, relying upon the judgmentEof this Court reported as Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa& Ors.[3 ]and some other judgments, it was held that the land reserved forpublic park cannot be permitted to be converted for other public purposes.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that theliberty given by the High Court to acquire the land within an additionalFperiod of one year is not contemplated by the statute. This Court inBangalore Medical Trust, a Public Interest Litigation, interfered withthe decision of the Bangalore Development Authority to convert theland reserved for public parks for the purposes of construction of ahospital. It was in these circumstances that this Court intervened, indictingthe land reserved for public parks to be used for other purposes.G
7. This Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbaiheld that the authorities have been given a duty to act as a cestui quetrust (beneficiary of the trust) with respect to public park and had thusdirected to acquire land under the Right to Fair Compensation and H3 (1991) 4 SCC 54
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,2013 within a period of six months. Such direction was given underArticle 142 of the Constitution of India keeping in view the facts of thecase. Such direction and period for acquisition of land is not a law declaredby this Court which is to be treated as binding precedent for this Courtand the subordinate courts subordinate in terms of Article 141 read withArticle 144 of the Constitution. Therefore, once the Act does notcontemplate any further period for acquisition, the Court cannot grantadditional period for acquisition of land. The land was reserved for apublic purpose way back in 2002. By such reservation, the land ownercould not use the land for any other purpose for ten years. After theexpiry of ten years, the land owner had served a notice calling upon therespondents to acquire the land but still the land was not acquired. Theland owner cannot be deprived of the use of the land for years together.Once an embargo has been put on a land owner not to use the land in aparticular manner, the said restriction cannot be kept open-ended forindefinite period. The Statute has provided a period of ten years to acquirethe land under Section 126 of the Act. Additional one year is granted tothe land owner to serve a notice for acquisition prior to the amendmentby Maharashtra Act No. 42 of 2015. Such time line is sacrosanct andhas to be adhered to by the State or by the Authorities under the State.
8. The State or its functionaries cannot be directed to acquire theland as the acquisition is on its satisfaction that the land is required for apublic purpose. If the State was inactive for long number of years, theCourts would not issue direction for acquisition of land, which is exerciseof power of the State to invoke its rights of eminent domain.
9. In view thereof, the direction to acquire land within a period ofone year is in fact contravening the time line fixed under the Statute.Consequently, the direction to acquire the land within one year is setaside. The appeal is allowed.
Devika Gujral
Appeal allowed
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H