MOHANDAS AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS on 29 January 2020

472

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2020] 3 S.C.R.

A

MOHANDAS AND OTHERS

v.

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

(Civil Appeal No. 831 of 2020)

B

JANUARY 29, 2020

[MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR ANDK. M. JOSEPH, JJ.]

Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 – Schemeof the Act – ss.38, 49, 126(4) & 127 – Appellants are the owners ofCdifferent plots of land – Development Plan was issued under the1966 Act and the entire land owned by the appellants was reservedfor construction of shopping complex – However, no steps weretaken by first and fourth respondent (Municipal Council, Gondia)– Plan was enforced from 1984 – Erstwhile owners of the propertyDissued notice dtd. 09.06.04 u/s.127 to fourth respondent for initiatingnecessary steps to acquire the land – Revised Draft Plan showedthat the appellants’ property was reserved for shopping complexand vegetable market – Objected by appellants – Final DevelopmentPlan also showed appellants’ property as reserved for shoppingcomplex and vegetable market – Writ Petition filed inter alia forEquashing the Final Development Plan – Dismissed by High Court –On appeal, held: Final Development Plan in this case came intoforce on 24.08.84 – Draft Revised Plan was issued on 24.09.07 –Final Revised Development Plan was issued w.e.f 15.05.12 – Rightwould accrue to the owner u/s.127 to serve notice thereunder onlyFif a declaration is not published within ten years of the DevelopmentPlan u/s.126(4), inter alia – Final Development Plan came into forceon 24.08.84 and there was declaration/notification u/s.126(4) on03.09.92 – This means, within ten years from 24.08.84, there isaction, as contemplated u/s.126(4) – Therefore, any notice whichwas given u/s.127 may not hold good going by the letter of the lawG– Further, lapsing of reservation contemplated u/s.127 will occuronly if the conditions mentioned therein are fulfilled – This is a casewhere the reservation under the Plan dtd. 24.08.84, which was thefinal Development Plan, had not lapsed and it was finally revisedu/s.38 – High Court right in finding that the appellant was not entitledH

MOHANDAS AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OFMAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

to the relief based on lapsing of reservation u/s.127 – Present is nota case for powers u/Art.142 to be exercised – Appellants must waitfor a period of ten years u/s.127 from 15.05.12 and then can issuenotice contemplated under the Act, unless action is already takenin the meantime – No view expressed on invoking of s.49 – Allremedies available to the appellants are left open – Constitution ofIndia – Art.142 – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency inLand Acquisition Rehabilitation and Settlement Act, 2013.

Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 – s.38– Discretion under, of the Planning Authority – If any – Discussed.

Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 – s.126– Effect of declaration under – Discussed.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

Conclusion

HELD: 1.1 The right would accrue to the owner underSection 127 of the Act to serve notice thereunder only if adeclaration is not published within ten years of the DevelopmentPlan under Section 126(4) of the Act, inter alia. The High Courthas, undoubtedly, noticed that the final Development Plan cameinto force on 24.08.1984. It further noticed that there is adeclaration or Notification under Section 126(4) of the Act on03.09.1992. This means, within ten years from 24.08.1984, thereis action, as contemplated under Section 126(4) of the Act. UnderSection 127 of the Act, therefore, any notice which was givenmay not hold good going by the letter of the law. In this case, it isclear that the appellants are governed by the Act. There is nodispute that invoking Section 38 of the Act that a revised finalDevelopment Plan has come into effect from 15.05.2012. It isundoubtedly true that the reservation under the originalDevelopment Plan dated 24.08.1984 would cease to impact theappellants if the notice under Section 127 of the Act was issuedon the passage of ten years from 24.08.1984 and, if action underSection 127 of the Act was not taken. It is true that notice dated09.06.2004 was issued by the predecessor in title of the appellants.This is not a case where there was inaction on the part of theprevious owners of the property upon the expiry of ten yearsfrom the date of the final Development Plan in 1984. The problemfor appellants, however, is the action on the part of the respondent A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aissuing declaration under Section 126(4) of the Act on 03.09.1992.Lapsing of reservation contemplated under Section 127 of theAct will occur only if the conditions mentioned therein are fulfilled.The indispensable conditions is that after the reservation of theland, inter alia, under any Plan, for a period of ten years, the landis not acquired by agreement within that period or proceedingsBfor acquisition under the Act, i.e., declaration under Section 126(4)of the Act, inter alia, is not published within the said period. Ifeither of the two conditions exist, a notice is to be issued settingin motion the process for lapsing reservation. If, before issuanceof notice, action is already taken by issuance of notification/Cdeclaration by the respondent within ten years of the finalDevelopment Plan, it will render the notice ineffective in law.The result is that the High Court was right in finding that theappellant was not entitled to the relief based on lapsing ofreservation under Section 127 of the Act. This is a case, therefore,where the Development Plan also stood revised under SectionD38 of the Act, bringing in consequences. [Paras 25-26][492-B-H;493-A]

1.2 Therefore, this is a case where the reservation underthe Plan dated 24.08.1984, which was the final Development Plan,had not lapsed and it was finally revised under Section 38 of theEAct. It is not in dispute that the property of the appellants hadbeen reserved originally for the purpose of shopping complex,and under the revised Development of 2012, for shopping complexand vegetable market. Proceeding on the basis of the contentionof the appellant that since the revised Development Plan wasFissued more than 20 years from the issuance of the initial finalDevelopment Plan on 24.08.1984, and therefore, revised Planissued on 24.09.2007, is not to have effect even then the originalDevelopment Plan issued on 24.08.1984 would continue to holdgood. There is no dispute that reservation under both the Plansin respect of the appellants properties are the same. In suchGcircumstances, there can be no merit in the contention. [Paras27, 29][493-B-E]

1.3 What is contemplated under Section 38 is that thePlanning Authority mayat least once in 20 years from the date onwhich a Development Plan has come into operation, inter alia,H

(the period of 20 years been calculated from the date on which, itcame into operation) revise the Development Plan. The provisionsof Sections 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30 and 31 were to apply inthis regard. The final Development Plan in this case came intoforce on 24.08.1984. The draft Revised Plan was issued on24.09.2007 and the final revised Development Plan was issuedwith effect from 15.05.2012. The further provision in Section 38of the Act is that if the Government directs the revision of thePlan, the Planning Authority shall revise the Plan. It may be atany time. In other words, the scheme would appear to be thateven before the completion of 20 years, it is open to theGovernment to direct the Planning Authority to undertake therevision of an existing Development Plan. In such a case, theword used is shall and there is no discretion and the PlanningAuthority is to revise the Plan. State Government can issue thedirection at any time without waiting for the period of 20 years.As far as the Planning Authority undertaking revision on its own,it is discretionary. As regards the time limit being breached, inthe facts of this case, the Court is unable to agree. It is notstipulated in Section 38 of the Act that the revision must beundertaken and finalized immediately before the expiry of 20 yearsfrom the date of the original final Development Plan. A period of20 years is to run out from original Development Plan in a casewhere the Planning Authority wishes to exercise power of revisionof the Plan. That is not the same thing as saying that the revisedPlan is to be brought into force before the expiry of 20 years. Inthis case, it is also not clear whether the Planning Authorityundertook the revision following the direction of the Government.[Para 31][494-A-F]

1.4 In this case, the declaration has been issued underSection 126(4) of the Act on 03.09.1992. The effect of thedeclaration under Section 126(4) is that the value of the land wasto be determined with reference to the date of the declaration. Ifdeclaration is made under Section 126(2) of the Act, the valuationis pushed back to the date of the draft Development Plan. Whatis actually contemplated would appear to be that after thedeclaration under Section 126(4), the matter must be followedup with reasonable dispatch. In other words, under the law relatingto land acquisition, further steps will be taken culminating in an AB

C

DEF

G

H

AAward. In this case, on the other hand it is not in dispute that nosteps were taken for acquiring the land for more than two decades.It is in the meantime that the revised Development Plan has comeinto being on 15.05.2012. Since no declaration has been madeunder Section 126(2) of the Act under the revised Plan and theperiod has run out as contemplated in the proviso to SectionB126(2), the only way out for the respondent would be to bring outa declaration under Section 126(4) of the Act. In such aneventuality, the value of the properties would have to bedetermined with reference to the date of such declaration underSection 126(4) of the Act. Therefore, if the property of theCappellants is to be acquired, the appellants would have to be giventhe value of the property as on the date on which any suchdeclaration is made under Section 126(4) of the Act within tenyears from 15.05.2012. [Para 32][494-G-H; 495-A-C]

1.5 In letters dated 6/7.04.2005 issued by the MunicipalDCouncil, it is stated by the Chief Executive Officer that in theResolution dated 15.02.2005, the land reserved no. 137 forshopping complex in Khasra Nos. 406, 407, 410 and 411, totalland measuring 4928 square meters in village Gondia shall notbe purchased. Resolution dated 15.02.2005 also appears tosuggest that the reservation under Section 127 of the Act isEreleased. The appellants would appear to contend that this shouldby itself cannot decide the matter. As to whether there is a lapsingof reservation under Section 127 of the Act, would be a matter tobe decided in terms of the said Statute. Also, after the Resolutionin the revised Plan, the reservation is reiterated. On 24.08.1984,Fthe final Development Plan is published. On 03.09.1992, thedeclaration under Section 126(4) of the Act was published. Afterexpiry of ten years from 24.08.1984, notice was given by theprevious owners on 09.06.2004. Thereafter, draft revised draftPlan publication was made on 29.11.2007. Still, thereafter, on 15.05.2012, a final revised Development Plan was published.GAlthough, under the original final Development Plan dated24.08.1984, the property of the appellants was reserved forshopping complex, and under the revised final Development Plandated 15.05.2012, the appellants lands have been subjected tothe reservation that it is meant for use as shopping complex andHvegetable market, apart from issuing the declaration, under Section 126(4) of the Act in the year 1992, there is no declarationissued under the revised Plan dated 15.05.2015. While, it is truethat the original final Development Plan came into force on24.08.1984 and the revised Development Plan came into force inthe year 2012, one crucial fact cannot be overlooked.Admittedly,the appellants purchased lands from the erstwhile owners onlyon 02.01.2006. Therefore, on the facts, particularly, having regardto the fact that they have purchased the property apparentlyknowing that the property was subjected to reservation, and asalso it is found that their case, based on the notice of previousowners, would not hold good in law and as the subsequent revisionof the Plan has come into force with effect from 15.05.2012, theCourt does not find that this is a case where it should exerciseits powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. Appellants cannotbe compared with the appellant in Hasmukhrai V. Mehta as theappellant therein was a person who was favoured with apermission to develop his land on the basis that the land wasmeant for residential purpose and it was he who went to courtand the lapse of twenty years was in the context found to have adeep impact. [Paras 35-37][496-D-H; 497-A-D]

Hasmukhrai V. Mehta v. State of Maharashtra andothers (2015) 3 SCC 154 : [2014] 11 SCR 377 –distinguished.

Prafulla C. Dave and others v. Municipal Commissionerand others (2015) 11 SCC 90 : [2014] 13 SCR 1397 –relied on.

Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd.And others (2003) 2 SCC 111 : [2002] 4 Suppl. SCR517; Chhabildas v. State of Maharashtra and others(2018) 2 SCC 784 : [2018] 1 SCR 411; MunicipalCorporation of Greater Bombay v. Dr. HakimwadiTenants’ Association and others (1998) Supp. SCC 55: 1988 SCR 21; Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtraand others [Girnar 2] (2007) 7 SCC 555 : [2007] 9SCR 383; Girnar Traders (3) v. State of Maharashtra[Girnar 3] (2011) 3 SCC 1 : [2011] 3 SCR 1;Shrirampur Municipal Council v. SatyabhamabaiBhimaji Dawkher (2013) 5 SCC 627 : [2013] 2 SCR

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

[2020] 3 S.C.R.

A664; T. Vijayalakshmi and others v. Town PlanningMember and another (2006) 8 SCC 502 : [2006] 7Suppl. SCR 534 – referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 831 of2020.

From the Judgment and Order dated 30.03.2015 of the High Courtof Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Writ Petition No.E4724 of 2013.

Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Adv., Rajendra Singhvi, Suresh Tolani,Ms. Arundhati Chakraborty, Ms. S. Lakshmi Iyer, Ms. Aishwarya Dash,T. R. B. Sivakumar, T. L. Garg, Advs. for the Appellants.

B. K. Pal, Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Advs. for theFRespondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

K. M. JOSEPH, J.

1. Leave granted.

G

2. Appellants are the petitioners before the High Court of Bombay.By the impugned Judgment, the Writ Petition filed by them standsdismissed.

3. The prayers sought by the appellants are as follows:

H

“(A) Quash and set aside the Reservation No.S-169 in the FinalDevelopment Plan of Gondia (Second Revised), whereby the landbearing Survey Nos. 405/1, 406/2, 407/2, 410/2 and 411 of Mouza-Gondia (Bk.), Tehsil & District-Gondia, belonging to the petitionersis reserved for Shopping Complex and Vegetable Market(Annexure “J”).

(B) Hold and declare that the land bearing Survey Nos. 405/1,406/2, 407/2, 410/2 and 411 of Mouza-Gondia (Bk.), Tehsil &District-Gondia, are not reserved for the development of ShoppingComplex and Vegetable market vide Reservation No.S-169 in theFinal Development Plan of Gondia (Second Revised) and that thepetitioners are free to use and develop the said land as true lawfuland absolute owners thereof as per the user for the adjacent landprovided under the Final Development Plan of Gondia (SecondRevised) {Annexure “J”}.”

4. Briefly, their case, before the High Court, is as follows:

Appellants are the owners of different plots of land totallyadmeasuring 0.52 hectares. They purchased the land on 02.01.2006. ADevelopment Plan was issued under the Maharashtra Regional and TownPlanning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short). Underthe Development Plan issued, the entire land owned by the appellantswas reserved for construction of shopping complex. First respondentand the fourth respondent (State of Maharashtra and the MunicipalCouncil, Gondia), however, did not take any steps. The Plan was enforcedfrom 1984. The erstwhile owners of the property issued a notice dated09.06.2004 under Section 127 of the Act calling upon the fourth respondentto initiate necessary steps for acquiring the land. The Municipal Councilheld a meeting on 15.02.2005. It was alleged that the fourth respondentdecided, by Resolution, not to acquire the land. Reference is placed onletters of 07.04.2005 and 08.04.2005 intimating that the land was free tobe used and developed in accordance with the user of adjacent lands.Though a draft Award was made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer,it was dropped on account of non-availability of funds. It is the furthercase of the appellant that appellant had submitted proposal forregularization of the layout carved out Plan over the said land. In themeantime, a revision of the Development Plan was contemplated and aDraft Plan was published followed by public notice. Again, the reviseddraft Plan showed that the appellants property was reserved for shopping A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Acomplex and vegetable market. Appellants objected to the same.Appellants were called for hearing by the fourth respondent. Appellantsimmediately thereafter approached the first respondent with detailedrepresentation. On 15.05.2012, the final Development Plan of Gondia(Second Revised Scheme) came into effect. The appellants property isshown as reserved for shopping complex and vegetable market. It isBessentially on these facts and complaining of inaction on the notice givenby their predecessors in the interest under Section 127 of the Act andcontending that the reservation in the Development Plan has ceased toexist, the Writ Petition was filed seeking reliefs, as noted by us. The WritPetition was opposed. The High Court, by the impugned Order, dismissedCthe Writ Petition.

5. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellantsShri Shekhar Naphade. We also heard the learned Counsel for the firstrespondent-State of Maharashtra. There was no representation on behalfof the fourth respondent-Municipal Council.D

6. Shri Naphade, learned Senior Counsel pointed out that theDevelopment Plan, reserving the property of the appellants, was madeway back in the year 1984. A notice was given within the meaning ofSection 127 of the Act. As there was no appropriate action ascontemplated under Section 127, the inevitable consequence is that theEproperty of the appellants must be freed from the reservation it issubjected to in the Development Plan.

7. Section 127 of the Act must be noticed at once. It reads asfollows:

“127. (1) If any land reserved, allotted or designated forFany purpose specified in any plan under this Act is not acquiredby agreement within ten years from the date on which a finalRegional Plan, or final Development Plan comes into force or if adeclaration under sub-section (2) or (4) of section 126 is notpublished in the Official Gazette within such period, the owner orGany person interested in the land may serve notice, alongwith thedocuments showing his title or interest in the said land, on thePlanning Authority, the Development Authority or, as the casemay be, the Appropriate Authority to that effect; and if withintwelve months] from the date of the service of such notice, theland is not acquired or no steps as aforesaid are commenced forHits acquisition, the reservation, allotment or designation shall be deemed to have lapsed, and thereupon, the land shall be deemedto be released from such reservation, allotment or designationand shall become available to the owner for the purpose ofdevelopment as otherwise, permissible in the case of adjacentland under the relevant plan. (2) On lapsing of reservation,allocation or designation of any land under sub-section (1), theGovernment shall notify the same, by an order published in theOfficial Gazette.]”

8. When the Court pointed out the fact that the High Court hasfound that there is a declaration under Section 126(4) of the Act withinten years from 1984, i.e., on 03.09.1992, the learned Senior Counselwould point out that even proceeding on the basis of the same, it iswholly unjust to keep under captivity, as it were, the valuable propertiesof the appellants seemingly eternally. He further complained that it is notas if any public purpose is going to be sub-served. This is a case wherethe Municipal Council, which is the Authority, which must make availablethe funds for the acquisition of the property, is in dire financial straitsand is unable to finance the acquisition. The Municipal Council does not,in fact, want to acquire the land. The letters issued and referred to by usis referred to. The appellants are, thus, held hostage and are at thereceiving end of the most unfair treatment by paying obeisance to theletter of the law as contained in Section 127 of the Act. He would furtherpoint out that the reasoning of the High Court about the effect of therevised Scheme coming into force under Section 38 of the Act is fallaciousand goes against the view of this Court in Bhavnagar Universityv. PalitanaSugar Mill (P) Ltd. and others1. He also drew our attention to a recentjudgment of this Court in Chhabildasv. State of Maharashtra and others2.He would, therefore, contend that this is a fit case where this Court mayreach justice to the appellants who virtually stand deprived of their propertywithin the meaning of Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

9. Per contra, the learned Counsel on behalf of the first respondentpointed out that the impugned judgment is premised soundly in law.Appellants, who sought to invoke the provisions of Section 127 of theAct, based on notice issued by their predecessor in interest, have, in thelight of the finding that declaration has been made under Section 126(4)within a period of 10 years (1992) of the Plan, issued in 1984, stand 1 (2003) 2 SCC 111

2 (2018) 2 SCC 784

ABC

D

E

F

G

H

Adeprived of any legal right to the consequences under Section 127 of theAct following non-compliance with such notice. He does not dispute thefact that there is considerable delay.

10. The legal principles about the provisions which we areconcerned with, is no longer res integra. The effect of the Act has beenBexplained in the decisions reported in Municipal Corporation of GreaterBombayv. Dr. Hakimwadi Tenants’ Association and others3, GirnarTradersv. State of Maharashtra and others4 [Girnar 2], Girnar Traders(3) v. State of Maharashtra5 [Girnar 3] among other cases. We willadvert to them in due course.C11. Undoubtedly, the scheme of the Act briefly put is as follows:

The Act contemplates planned development. Chapter II deals withprovisions relating to regional plans. Regional Plan is defined in Section2(25) as meaning a plan for development or redevelopment of a regionapproved by the State Government and which has come into operationDunder the Act. Region is in turn defined as an area established to be aregion under Section 3 of the Act. Development Plan falls under ChapterIII of the Act. The Act contemplates that every Planning Authority is toprepare the development authority. Development Plan is defined underSection 2(9) as a Plan for the development or redevelopment of the areawithin jurisdiction of a Planning Authority. It also includes revision of aEdevelopment plan and proposals of the Special Planning Authority fordevelopment of land within its jurisdiction. Development is defined inSection 2(7) in a very comprehensive way. Planning Authority is definedin Section 2(19), and after its substitution by Act 5 of 1992, it means aLocal Authority and includes a Special Planning Authority under SectionF40 as also the Slum Rehabilitation Authority under Section 3(a) of theMaharashtra Slum Areas Improvement, Clearance and Regional Act,1971. Spread over the various Sections of Chapter III, are elaborateprovisions including preparation of draft Development Plans and finalizingthe same, implementation, revision and variation of the Plan. Section 43of the Act speaks about restrictions on the development of land upon theGdeclaration of intention to prepare a Development Plan. Section 45 speaksabout the power to grant or refuse permission for the Application underSection 44 to develop the land.

3 (1998) Supp. SCC 554 (2007) 7 SCC 555H5 2011 (3) SCC 1

Chapter V deals with Town Planning Schemes. The word‘Scheme’ has been defined as including a Plan relating to Town PlanningScheme.

12. Bearing these provisions in mind, we come to Chapter VII.Provisions under the said Chapter relate to land acquisition. Section 125of the Act provides that any land acquired, reserved or designated inRegional Plan or Development Plan or Town Planning Scheme, interalia, shall be deemed to be land needed for public purpose, under theRight to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land AcquisitionRehabilitation and Settlement Act, 2013 (Prior to 29.08.2015, undoubtedly,the words were under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as far as the lastpart is concerned). Sections 4 to 15 of the 2013 Act is not made applicablein respect of the said lands. Section 126 of the Act deals with the modeof applying the law relating to acquisition in regard to a draft RegionalPlan or Development Plan or any other Plan or Town Planning Scheme.Sub-Section (1) contemplates acquiring land either by agreement or thebasis of granting of other rights including Transferable DevelopmentRight (TDR). Lastly, the Authority can apply to the State Governmentfor acquiring such land under the law relating to land acquisition. Sub-Section (2) contemplates action on the part of the State Government onreceipt of application under Sub-Section (1). It contemplates a declarationby the State Government. It provided, inter alia, that the declarationwas to be deemed to be a declaration under the Land Acquisition Act,1894 and after the amendment, as it stands now, under Section 19 of theRight to Fair Compensation Act, 2013. After substitution by Act 10 of1994, no declaration was to be made after expiry of one year from thedate of publication of the draft Regional Plan, Development Plan or anyother Plan or Scheme. Sub-Section (3) of Section 126 of the Act providesfor the Collector to proceed to take order for acquisition of the land.Sub-Section (4) of Section 126 of the Act, reads as follows:

“126(4)Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisoto sub-section (2) and subsection (3), if a declaration,] is not made,within the period referred to in sub-section (2) (or having beenmade, the aforesaid period expired on the commencement of theMaharashtra Regional and Town Planning 5[(Amendment) Act,1993)], the State Government may make a fresh declaration foracquiring the land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in themanner provided by sub-sections (2) and (3) of this section, subject AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

to the modification that the market value of the land shall be themarket value at the date of declaration in the Official Gazette,made for acquiring the land afresh.]

13. Then, there is Section 127 which deals with lapsing ofreservation, inter alia, which we have already referred to above.B

14. We may also notice Section 49 of the Act. Section 49 of theAct deals with a notice to acquire land in certain situations. The situationsare set out in sub-Section (1). It includes a situation where any land, forthe development of which permission is refused and owner falls underany of clauses in (a), (b), (c), claims that the land have become incapableCof reasonably beneficial use in its existing state or where permission isgranted subject to conditions which render the land not capable ofreasonably beneficial use. Under sub-Section (4), the State Governmentto which the purchase notice under the Section is to be addressed is totake the decision either accepting or refusing the purchase notice. Sub-Section (5) deals with a deemed confirmation of a purchase notice failingDresponse within six months by the Government on the notice. Sub-Section(7) of Section 49 reads as follows:

“49(7) If within one year from the date of confirmation ofthe notice, the Appropriate Authority fails to make an applicationto acquire the land in respect of which the purchase notice hasEbeen confirmed as required under section 126, the reservation,designation, allotment, indication or restriction on development ofthe land shall be deemed to have lapsed ; and thereupon, the landshall be deemed to be released from the reservation, designation,or, as the case may be, allotment, indication or restriction andFshall become available to the owner for the purpose of developmentotherwise permissible in the case of adjacent land, under therelevant plan.”

15. In Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombayv. Dr. HakimwadiTenants’ Association and others6, this Court, inter alia, held as follows:G“11. Section 127 of the Act is a part of the law for acquisition “11. Section 127 of the Act is a part of the law for acquisitionof lands required for public purposes, namely, for implementationof schemes of town planning. The statutory bar created by Section127 providing that reservation of land under a development schemeshall lapse if no steps are taken for acquisition of land within a H6 (1998) Supp. SCC 55

period of six months from the date of service of the purchasenotice, is an integral part of the machinery created by whichacquisition of land takes place. The word “aforesaid” in thecollocation of the words “no steps as aforesaid are commencedfor its acquisition” obviously refer to the steps contemplated bySection 126(1). The effect of a declaration by the StateGovernment under sub-section (2) thereof, if it is satisfied thatthe land is required for the implementation of a regional plan,development plan or any other town planning scheme, followedby the requisite declaration to that effect in the official Gazette, inthe manner provided by Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, isto freeze the prices of the lands affected. The Act lays down theprinciples of fixation by providing firstly, by the proviso to Section126(2) that no such declaration under sub-section (2) shall bemade after the expiry of three years from the date of publicationof the draft regional plan, development plan or any other plan,secondly, by enacting sub-section (4) of Section 126 that if adeclaration is not made within the period referred to in sub-section(2), the State Government may make a fresh declaration but, inthat event, the market value of the land shall be the market valueat the date of the declaration under Section 6 and not the marketvalue at the date of the notification under Section 4, and thirdly, bySection 127 that if any land reserved, allotted or designated forany purpose in any development plan is not acquired by agreementwithin 10 years from the date on which a final regional plan ordevelopment plan comes into force or if proceedings for theacquisition of such land under the Land Acquisition Act are notcommenced within such period, such land shall be deemed to bereleased from such reservation, allotment or designation andbecome available to the owner for the purpose of development onthe failure of the Appropriate Authority to initiate any steps for itsacquisition within a period of six months from the date of serviceof a notice by the owner or any person interested in the land. Itcannot be doubted that a period of 10 years is long enough. TheDevelopment or the Planning Authority must take recourse toacquisition with some amount of promptitude in order that thecompensation paid to the expropriated owner bears a just relationto the real value of the land as otherwise, the compensation paidfor the acquisition would be wholly illusory. Such fetter on statutory AB

C

DE

F

G

H

486SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Apowers is in the interest of the general public and the conditionssubject to which they can be exercised must be strictly followed.”

16. In Girnar Tradersv. State of Maharashtra and others7, themajority view was that a literal interpretation of Section 127 of the ActBwould result in injustice. The question, which was posed, actually waswhat is required to be done by the Authority on receipt of a notice underSection 127 of the Act from the owner of land subjected to restrictionsby way of a Development Plan, inter alia. The dissenting Judge, P.K.Balasubramanium, J., took the view that all that is required to be doneCwhen a notice is issued under Section 127 of the Act was that the Authorityunder the Act was to make an application for acquisition under the LandAcquisition Act and nothing more. The learned Judge went on to holdthat the Authority cannot set in motion proceeding under the LandAcquisition Act while acting under Section 126 (1) of the Act. Themajority view, however, was that resorting to the plain meaning of theDwords would cause palpable injustice. The Court took the view as follows:

“54. … If the acquisition is left for time immemorial in thehands of the authority concerned by simply making an applicationto the State Government for acquiring such land under the LAAct, 1894, then the authority will simply move such an applicationEand if no such notification is issued by the State Government forone year of the publication of the draft regional plan under Section126(2) read with Section 6 of the LA Act, wait for the notificationto be issued by the State Government by exercising suo motupower under sub-section (4) of Section 126; and till then noFdeclaration could be made under Section 127 as regards lapsingof reservation and contemplated declaration of land being releasedand available for the landowner for his utilisation as permittedunder Section 127. Section 127 permitted inaction on the part ofthe acquisition authorities for a period of 10 years for dereservationof the land. Not only that, it gives a further time for either toGacquire the land or to take steps for acquisition of the land withina period of six months from the date of service of notice by thelandowner for dereservation. The steps towards commencementof the acquisition in such a situation would necessarily be thesteps for acquisition and not a step which may not result into H7 (2007) 7 SCC 555

acquisition and merely for the purpose of seeking time so thatSection 127 does not come into operation.”

17. Thus, it was concluded that the steps towards acquisition wouldreally commence when the State Government permits acquisition, andas a result thereof, publishes the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.The Constitution Bench of this Court in Girnar 3(supra), has taken noteof the view of the majority judgment in course of its judgment which,inter alia, dealt with the question as to whether Section 11A of the LandAcquisition Act applies to proceedings under the Act under the chapterrelating to acquisition. This Court took the view that Section 11A doesnot apply.

18. In Shrirampur Municipal Councilv. Satyabhamabai BhimajiDawkher8, the question which was considered, before a Bench of threelearned Judges was, whether reservation of lands would lapse if no stepswere commenced within six months under Section 127 of the Act. ThisCourt found no conflict between Municipal Corporation of GreaterBombay(supra) and Girnar 2(supra). This Court held as follows:

“29. The aforesaid judgment lays down that since morethan 20 years had elapsed since the date of the purchase noticeunder Section 49 on the facts of that case, the land will have to bereleased from acquisition. No doubt this Court held that over 20years is an inordinately long period of delay, and therefore, lapsinghas taken place under Section 127 of the MRTP Act. However,on the facts of that case, no purchase notice under Section 127was issued after 10 years had elapsed from the date of publicationof the requisite plan. This being the case, we read the judgmentas having allowed a lapse to take place, in view of the inordinatelylong delay of over 20 years, by really doing complete justice onthe facts of that case under Article 142 of the Constitution ofIndia.

30. In the present case, 15 years have passed since thedate of publication of the development plan, and over 10 yearshave passed since the date of the purchase notice issued underSection 49. Considering the fact that there has been no stay atany stage by any court, it is clear that an inordinately long period 8 (2013) 5 SCC 627

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

Aof time has elapsed, both since the date of publication of thedevelopment plan, as well as the date of the purchase notice servedunder Section 49. No doubt, the letter of 26-9-2008 shows that anapplication was made within the requisite time period to acquirethe aforesaid land. However, on the facts of this case, since afterthe aforesaid letter nothing has been done to acquire the appellant’sBproperty, we are of the view that the reservation contained in thedevelopment plan as well as acquisition proposal have lapsed. Wemake it clear that we hold this in order to do complete justicebetween the parties under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.However, in all future cases that may arise under the provisionsCof Section 49, the drill of Section 127 must be followed i.e. thatafter 10 years have elapsed from the date of publication of therelevant plan, a second purchase notice must be served inaccordance with the provisions of Section 127, in order that lapsingcan take place under the aforesaid section. With these observations,the appeal is disposed of.”

D

19. Finally, the Court also held as follows:

“45. In our view, the observations contained in para 133 ofGirnar Traders (3) [Girnar Traders (3) v. State of Maharashtra,(2011) 3 SCC 1] unequivocally support the majority judgment inEGirnar Traders (2) [Girnar Traders (2) v. State of Maharashtra,(2007) 7 SCC 555] .”

20. In Bhavnagar University(supra), the case arose under theGujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976. Therein,this Court considering the provision similar to the provisions of the ActF(Section 20 of the Act in the said case corresponded to Section 127 ofthe Act), took the view that though under Section 21 of the Gujarat Act,a duty was cast to revise the Development Plan, the rights of the ownersunder Section 20(2) of the Act would not be taken away. We need onlyrefer to paragraph 38 of the judgment, which reads as follows:

G“38. Section 21 does not envisage that despite the fact thatin terms of sub-section (2) of Section 20, the designation of landshall lapse, the same, only because a draft revised plan is made,would automatically give rise to revival thereof.Section 20 doesnot manifest a legislative intent to curtail or take away the rightacquired by a landowner under Section 22 of getting the landHdefreezed. In the event the submission of the learned Solicitor- General is accepted the same would completely render theprovisions of Section 20(2) otiose and redundant.”

21. In Prafulla C. Dave and othersv. Municipal Commissionerand others9, this Court, again, considered the provisions of Section 127of the Act. The facts therein may be noticed briefly as follows:

There was a Development Plan notified on 08.07.1966. The landof the appellant was kept under reservation for a garden. The land wasnot acquired under any of the modes in Section 126 of the Act prior tothe sanction of the revised Development Plan dated 05.01.1987. Thefinally revised Development Plan dated 05.01.1987 was preceded by adraft revised Plan published in 1982. No notice under Section 127 of theAct was issued by the owner or any person interested in the land prior tothe purchase of the land by the appellants from the original owners inthe year 1989. The appellant served notice dated 05.10.1989. On adirection by the High Court, the notice under Section 127 of the Act wasfound premature by the Authority as it was issued before completion often years from the date of the revised Development Plan. The contentionof the respondent-Municipal Commissioner was that a revised Plan underSection 38 tantamounted to a complete Development Plan under Sections21 to 30 of the Act. The period of ten years under Section 127 of the Actwould necessarily run from the date of coming into force of such revisedPlan. The contention of the respondent also was that under the GujaratAct, certain provisions found in the Act are absent and BhavnagarUniversity(supra) was distinguished, inter alia. This Court proceededto hold in Prafulla C. Dave(supra), inter alia, as follows:

“21. … It is, therefore, clear that the lapsing of thereservation, allotment or designation under Section 127 can happenonly on the happening of the contingencies mentioned in the saidsection. If the landowner or the person interested himself remainsinactive, the provisions of the Act dealing with the preparation ofrevised plan under Section 38 will have full play. Action on thepart of the landowner or the person interested as required underSection 127 must be anterior in point of time to the preparation ofthe revised plan.Delayed action on the part of the landowner,that is, after the revised plan has been finalised and published will A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

A

not invalidate the reservation, allotment or designation that mayhave been made or continued in the revised plan. …”

22. In a recent judgment, considering a case under Section 49 ofthe Act, a Bench of two learned Judges in Chhabildas (supra) hasBconsidered the interplay of Sections 49, 126 and 127 of the Act. TheCourt took the view as follows:

“14. A purchase notice may be served under Section 49,after the expiry of one year from the date of publication of theplan in question, in which case Section 126(2) of the Act will notCapply. Under Section 126(4), the State Government may make adeclaration under Section 6 subject to the modification that themarket value of the land shall be the market value at the date ofthe declaration in the Official Gazette made for acquiring the land.But this does not mean that the State Government has carteDblanche to do as it pleases. Ordinarily, the State Government isbound to act under Section 126(4) within a reasonable time fromthe appropriate authority making an application to acquire the land.This should ordinarily be within a period of one year from the datesuch an application is made. However, if such declaration is notmade within the aforesaid period, it will be open for the aggrievedEperson to move the Court to direct the State Government to makethe requisite declaration immediately.

15. But the matter does not end here. Thereafter, Section127 kicks in. If a declaration under Section 6 of the Land AcquisitionAct is not made within a period of 10 years from the date onFwhich a plan comes into force under sub-section (4) of Section126, the owner or any person interested in the land may serve apurchase notice on the authorities, and if within one year from thedate of service of such notice, the land is not acquired or no stepsare commenced for its acquisition, the reservation, allotment orGdesignation shall be deemed to have lapsed.”

23. This Court, however, noticed the judgment in Hasmukhrai V.Mehtav. State of Maharashtra and others10 and held as follows:

“29. The aforesaid judgment lays down that since morethan 20 years had elapsed since the date of the purchase noticeH10 (2015) 3 SCC 154

under Section 49 on the facts of that case, the land will have to bereleased from acquisition. No doubt this Court held that over 20years is an inordinately long period of delay, and therefore, lapsinghas taken place under Section 127 of the MRTP Act. However,on the facts of that case, no purchase notice under Section 127was issued after 10 years had elapsed from the date of publicationof the requisite plan. This being the case, we read the judgmentas having allowed a lapse to take place, in view of the inordinatelylong delay of over 20 years, by really doing complete justice onthe facts of that case under Article 142 of the Constitution ofIndia.

30. In the present case, 15 years have passed since thedate of publication of the development plan, and over 10 yearshave passed since the date of the purchase notice issued underSection 49. Considering the fact that there has been no stay atany stage by any court, it is clear that an inordinately long periodof time has elapsed, both since the date of publication of thedevelopment plan, as well as the date of the purchase notice servedunder Section 49. No doubt, the letter of 26-9-2008 shows that anapplication was made within the requisite time period to acquirethe aforesaid land. However, on the facts of this case, since afterthe aforesaid letter nothing has been done to acquire the appellant’s property, we are of the view that the reservation contained in thedevelopment plan as well as acquisition proposal have lapsed. Wemake it clear that we hold this in order to do complete justicebetween the parties under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.However, in all future cases that may arise under the provisionsof Section 49, the drill of Section 127 must be followed i.e. thatafter 10 years have elapsed from the date of publication of therelevant plan, a second purchase notice must be served inaccordance with the provisions of Section 127, in order that lapsingcan take place under the aforesaid section. With these observations,the appeal is disposed of.”

24. Shri Naphade, learned Senior Counsel, inspired by the viewsexpressed by this Court in Hasmukhrai V. Mehta(supra) Chhabildas(supra), would submit that this is a case where the Development Planwas finalized under Section 31 of the Act in the year 1984, more than 35years. Neither is there any sign of land of the appellants being acquired AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Anor are the appellants being extricated from the rigor of the reservationmade of their lands. Under the Development Plan, the land of theappellants is reserved for use as a shopping complex and a vegetablemarket.

25. The right would accrue to the owner under Section 127 of theBAct to serve notice thereunder only if a declaration is not publishedwithin ten years of the Development Plan under Section 126(4) of theAct, inter alia. The High Court has, undoubtedly, noticed that the finalDevelopment Plan came into force on 24.08.1984. It further noticedthat there is a declaration or Notification under Section 126(4) of theAct on 03.09.1992. This means, within ten years from 24.08.1984, thereCis action, as contemplated under Section 126(4) of the Act. Under Section127 of the Act, therefore, any notice which was given may not hold goodgoing by the letter of the law.

26. In this case, it is clear that the appellants are governed by theAct. There is no dispute that invoking Section 38 of the Act that a revisedDfinal Development Plan has come into effect from 15.05.2012. It isundoubtedly true that the reservation under the original DevelopmentPlan dated 24.08.1984 would cease to impact the appellants if the noticeunder Section 127 of the Act was issued on the passage of ten yearsfrom 24.08.1984 and, if action under Section 127 of the Act was notEtaken. It is true that notice dated 09.06.2004 was issued by thepredecessor in title of the appellants. This is not a case where there wasinaction on the part of the previous owners of the property upon theexpiry of ten years from the date of the final Development Plan in 1984.The problem for appellants, however, is the action on the part of therespondent issuing declaration under Section 126(4) of the Act onF03.09.1992. Lapsing of reservation contemplated under Section 127 ofthe Act will occur only if the conditions mentioned therein are fulfilled.The indispensable conditions is that after the reservation of the land,inter alia, under any Plan, for a period of ten years, the land is notacquired by agreement within that period or proceedings for acquisitionGunder the Act, i.e., declaration under Section 126(4) of the Act, interalia, is not published within the said period. If either of the two conditionsexist, a notice is to be issued setting in motion the process for lapsingreservation. If, before issuance of notice, action is already taken byissuance of notification/declaration by the respondent within ten yearsof the final Development Plan, it will render the notice ineffective in law.H

The result is that the High Court was right in finding that the appellantwas not entitled to the relief based on lapsing of reservation under Section127 of the Act. This is a case, therefore, where the Development Planalso stood revised under Section 38 of the Act, bringing in consequences,as noticed by this Court in Prafulla C. Dave(supra).

27. Therefore, this is a case where the reservation under the Plandated 24.08.1984, which was the final Development Plan, had not lapsedand it was finally revised under Section 38 of the Act. It is not in disputethat the property of the appellants had been reserved originally for thepurpose of shopping complex, and under the revised Development of2012, for shopping complex and vegetable market.

28. The contention of the appellants is, however, that the draftrevised Plan was prepared on 29.11.2007 which is after 20 years of thepublication of the Development Plan and it was finalized in the year2012.

29. Proceeding on the basis of the contention of the appellant thatsince the revised Development Plan was issued more than 20 yearsfrom the issuance of the initial final Development Plan on 24.08.1984,and therefore, revised Plan issued on 24.09.2007, is not to have effecteven then the original Development Plan issued on 24.08.1984 wouldcontinue to hold good. There is no dispute that reservation under boththe Plans in respect of the appellants properties are the same. In suchcircumstances, there can be no merit in the contention.

30. The contention is not seen taken before the Court. Section 38of the Act reads as follows:

“38. Revision of Development plan:- At least once in 20[twenty years] from the date on which a Development plan hascome into operation, and where a Development plan is sanctionedin parts, then at least once in 4[twenty years] from the date onwhich the last part has come into operation, a Planning Authoritymay 3 [and shall at any time when so directed by the StateGovernment], revise the Development plan 4 [either wholly, orthe parts separately] after carrying out, if necessary, a fresh surveyand preparing an existing land-use map of the area within itsjurisdiction, and the provisions of sections 5 [* * *] 22, 23, 24, 25,26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 shall, so far as they can be madeapplicable, apply in respect of such revision of the Developmentplan.”

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

A31. What is contemplated under the said provision is that thePlanning Authority mayat least once in 20 years from the date on whicha Development Plan has come into operation, inter alia, (the period of20 years been calculated from the date on which, it came into operation)revise the Development Plan. The provisions of Sections 22, 23, 24, 25,26, 27, 28, 30 and 31 were to apply in this regard. The final DevelopmentBPlan in this case came into force on 24.08.1984. The draft Revised Planwas issued on 24.09.2007 and the final revised Development Plan wasissued with effect from 15.05.2012. The further provision in Section 38of the Act is that if the Government directs the revision of the Plan, thePlanning Authority shall revise the Plan. It may be at any time. In otherCwords, the scheme would appear to be that even before the completionof 20 years, it is open to the Government to direct the Planning Authorityto undertake the revision of an existing Development Plan. In such acase, the word used is shall and there is no discretion and the PlanningAuthority is to revise the Plan. State Government can issue the directionat any time without waiting for the period of 20 years. AS far as theDPlanning Authority undertaking revision on its own, it is discretionary. Asregards the time limit being breached, in the facts of this case, we areunable to agree. It is not stipulated in Section 38 of the Act that therevision must be undertaken and finalized immediately before the expiryof 20 years from the date of the original final Development Plan. AEperiod of 20 years is to run out from original Development Plan in a casewhere the Planning Authority wishes to exercise power of revision ofthe Plan. That is not the same thing as saying that the revised Plan is tobe brought into force before the expiry of 20 years. In this case, it is alsonot clear whether the Planning Authority undertook the revision followingthe direction of the Government.F

32. The only aspect which remains is whether this is a case whichcalls for the exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution ofIndia. The sheet anchor of the appellants case appears to be the decisionof this Court in Chhabildas(supra), which we have already referred toabove. In this case, the declaration has been issued under Section 126(4)Gof the Act on 03.09.1992. The effect of the declaration under Section126(4) is that the value of the land was to be determined with referenceto the date of the declaration. If declaration is made under Section 126(2)of the Act, the valuation is pushed back to the date of the draftDevelopment Plan. What is actually contemplated would appear to beHthat after the declaration under Section 126(4), the matter must be

followed up with reasonable dispatch. In other words, under the lawrelating to land acquisition, further steps will be taken culminating in anAward. In this case, on the other hand it is not in dispute that no stepswere taken for acquiring the land for more than two decades. It is in themeantime that the revised Development Plan has come into being on15.05.2012. Since no declaration has been made under Section 126(2)of the Act under the revised Plan and the period has run out ascontemplated in the proviso to Section 126(2), the only way out for therespondent would be to bring out a declaration under Section 126(4) ofthe Act. In such an eventuality, the value of the properties would have tobe determined with reference to the date of such declaration under Section126(4) of the Act. Therefore, if the property of the appellants is to beacquired, the appellants would have to be given the value of the propertyas on the date on which any such declaration is made under Section126(4) of the Act within ten years from 15.05.2012.

33. In Hasmukhrai V. Mehta(supra), the case was decided underthe Act. In the impugned order, the High Court had dismissed the WritPetition of the appellant, inter alia, finding that such Plan was finalizedin March, 2003 and the period of ten years had not elapsed and nobenefit could be given. The Court took note of the fact that in T.Vijayalakshmi and othersv. Town Planning Member and another11, thisCourt had declared that the right of a person to construct residentialhouses in a residential area is a valuable right and also considered thatthe appellant had been granted permission and commencement certificateon 03.04.1990 under the Development Plan under which the property ofthe appellant was included under the residential zone and the Plan wasalso sanctioned. It is thereafter, on 14.01.1999, the appellants wereinformed about the fresh development scheme including the appellantsland as reserved for agricultural produce market yard. In thesecircumstances, inter alia, the Court, taking note of the fact that since nosteps appear to have been taken till date for the last more than 20 years,either for acquiring land or purchasing land under the Act, the landswere to stand released under Section 127 of the Act.

34. In the judgment in Chhabildas(supra), this Court referred tothe aforesaid judgment and holds that the said judgment lays down thatsince more than 20 years have elapsed since the date of purchase noticeunder Section 49 of the Act, on the facts of that case, the lands will have AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ato be released from acquisition. Thereafter, this Court proceeds to noticethat in the said case [Hasmukhrai V. Mehta(supra)], no purchase noticeunder Section 127 of the Act was issued after ten years had elapsed.Thereafter, this Court proceeded to hold that this being the case thejudgment was understood as one which was passed under Article 142 ofthe Constitution of India in view of the inordinate delay of over twentyByears. Thereafter, Court took note of the facts of the case before it andfound that fifteen years had passed since the publication of theDevelopment Plan and over ten years passed since date of purchasenotice under Section 49 of the Act. The Court proceeded to invoke Article142 of the Constitution of India and found that the reservation and theCacquisition proposals stood lapsed. However, it was made clear that infuture cases that may arise under Section 49 of the Act, the procedureunder Section 127 of the Act must be followed which means that afterten years had lapsed, a second purchase notice had to be served underSection 127 of the Act in order that lapsing could take place under thesaid Section.D

35. Now, it is time to consider the impact of the letters dated6/7.04.2005 issued by the Municipal Council. Therein, it is stated by theChief Executive Officer that in the Resolution dated 15.02.2005, theland reserved no. 137 for shopping complex in Khasra Nos. 406, 407,410 and 411, total land measuring 4928 square meters in village GondiaEshall not be purchased. Resolution dated 15.02.2005 also appears tosuggest that the reservation under Section 127 of the Act is released.The appellants would appear to contend that this should by itself cannotdecide the matter. As to whether there is a lapsing of reservation underSection 127 of the Act, would be a matter to be decided in terms of theFsaid Statute. Also, after the Resolution in the revised Plan, the reservationis reiterated.

36. The only question is whether it is to be ignored in decidingwhether we should invoke Article 142 of the Constitution of India. On24.08.1984, the final Development Plan is published. On 03.09.1992, theGdeclaration under Section 126(4) of the Act was published. After expiryof ten years from 24.08.1984, notice was given by the previous ownerson 09.06.2004. Thereafter, draft revised draft Plan publication was madeon 29.11.2007. Still, thereafter, on 15.05.2012, a final revised DevelopmentPlan was published. Although, under the original final Development Plandated 24.08.1984, the property of the appellants was reserved forH

shopping complex, and under the revised final Development Plan dated15.05.2012, the appellants lands have been subjected to the reservationthat it is meant for use as shopping complex and vegetable market, apartfrom issuing the declaration, under Section 126(4) of the Act in the year1992, there is no declaration issued under the revised Plan dated15.05.2015. While, it is true that the original final Development Plancame into force on 24.08.1984 and the revised Development Plan cameinto force in the year 2012, one crucial fact cannot be overlooked.Admittedly, the appellants purchased lands from the erstwhile ownersonly on 02.01.2006. Therefore, on the facts, particularly, having regardto the fact that they have purchased the property apparently knowingthat the property was subjected to reservation, and as also we havefound that their case, based on the notice of previous owners, would nothold good in law and as the subsequent revision of the Plan has comeinto force with effect from 15.05.2012, we do not find that this is a casewhere we should exercise our powers under Article 142 of theConstitution. Appellants cannot be compared with the appellant inHasmukhrai V. Mehta(supra) as the appellant therein was a personwho was favoured with a permission to develop his land on the basisthat the land was meant for residential purpose and it was he who wentto court and the lapse of twenty years was in the context found to havea deep impact.

37. The appellants must wait for a period of ten years under Section127 of the Act from 15.05.2012 and then can issue notice contemplatedunder the Act. That is, within a period of little over two years from now,appellants would have a cause of action to give notice under Section 127of the Act unless action is already taken in the meantime. No doubt, wewould expect that the respondents would be alive to the object of theStatute and also the rights of the owners and will not act mechanicallyand unfairly in the matter in the future. As far as invoking Section 49 ofthe Act, we do not express any view. Leaving open all the remediesavailable to the appellants, the appeal shall stand dismissed.

38. There shall be no order as to costs.

Divya Pandey

Appeal dismissed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H