Whether any person other owner of immovable property can give valid notice U/S 127 of MRTP Act?

 c] In the case of Ramchandra Shankar Joshi and others v. State of Maharashtra and others reported in MANU/MH/2180/2015 : 2016 (1) Mh LJ 765 : 2015 (6) AIR Bom R 364 in paragraph Nos. 7 & 8 the Division Bench of this Court has observed thus:

"7. It is a settled position of law that notice contemplated under Section 127 of the Act of 1966 is to be given by the owner or the person having interest in the land which is reserved, allotted or designated for the particular purpose in the development plan. The object of the notice under Section 127 is to inform the Authority mentioned therein to acquire the land which is designated, reserved or allotted in the final development plan. It is further settled position in law that form of notice under Section 127 is not prescribed. Therefore such notice shall meet sufficient requirement in describing the land in clear terms and require the planning authority or development authority or the appropriate authority, as the case may be, to acquire or compulsorily purchase the land so reserved, allotted or designated in the development plan. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Writ Petition No. 5312 of 2016

Decided On: 20.03.2018

Mariyam Begum Abdul Jalil Khan and Ors.  Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.V. Gangapurwala and S.M. Gavhane, JJ.

Author: S.M. Gavhane, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/1536/2018.

Read full Judgment here: Click here

Print Page

Whether the condition of attaching the documents of title with the purchase notice notice U/S 127 of MRTP Act is deemed to be waived by the Municipal Corporation if it has not replied to said notice?

d] In the case of M/s. Gupta Loom Industries & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported in MANU/MH/3005/2015 : 2016 (6) ALL MR 307 : (2016 (1) ABR 170) the Division Bench of this Court in Paragraph Nos. 13 and 14 has observed as under:

"13. It is true that the notice under subsection (1) of Section 127 has to be construed strictly as non-compliance with the notice has a drastic consequence of lapse of reservation. Therefore, the mandatory requirement of law is that strict compliance must be made of while issuing a notice under sub-section (1) of Section 127. In the facts of the case, we find that specifically on the basis of the said notice dated 7th October, 2010, the General Body of the Municipal Corporation passed a resolution for initiating acquisition proceedings. The proposal for the acquisition specifically refers to the said notice. Hence, even the said Corporation has acted upon the said notice dated 7th October, 2010 by treating it as a notice under Section 127.

14. It is well settled that if certain requirements or conditions are provided by a statute for the benefit of a person, the said requirements or conditions though mandatory, may be waived by the said person if no public interest is involved. In the facts of the case, the Municipal Corporation acted upon the said notice by passing a resolution to initiate acquisition proceedings which shows that the alleged defects in the notice were waived by the said Corporation for whose benefit certain requirements are provided in Section 127."

 31. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners relying upon the ratio laid down in the case of M/s. Gupta Loom Industries & Anr cited (MANU/MH/3005/2015 : 2016 (1) ABR 170) (supra) and Supreme Industries Ltd. Through its Authorized Signatory cited (supra)submitted that, in the present case as respondents have not replied purchase notice it can be said that they have waived the condition of attaching the documents of title with purchase notice. In both the above said decisions the respondent Municipal Corporation had passed resolution for initiating acquisition proceedings to acquire the land after receipt of the purchase notice and acted upon the said notice. Therefore, it was held in the said decisions that respondents have waived the alleged defect in the notice. In the present case, it is not the case of any of the respondents that after receipt of the purchase notice the respondent Municipal Corporation has passed resolution to initiate acquisition proceedings to acquire the subject properties. Thus, facts of above decisions are different from facts of this case. Therefore, the arguments advanced as above on behalf of the petitioners is not accepted and the ratio laid down in the above decisions is of no help to say that the respondents have waived the condition of attaching documents of title with the purchase notice.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Writ Petition No. 5312 of 2016

Decided On: 20.03.2018

Mariyam Begum Abdul Jalil Khan and Ors.  Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.V. Gangapurwala and S.M. Gavhane, JJ.

Author: S.M. Gavhane, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/1536/2018.

Read full Judgment here: Click here

Print Page

Whether purchase notice U/S 127 of MRTP Act is invalid if documents of ownership are not annexed to said notice?

Learned Advocate appearing for respondent No. 4 submits that the petitioners are not owners of the subject properties. They have not annexed the documents of title to the subject properties with the purchase notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act. Learned Advocate further submits that as per section 127 of the MRTP Act the land owners have to supply copies of documents showing their title or interest in the land with notice. Since the petitioners did not annex documents of their ownership to the subject properties with notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act there is no compliance of the said provision and therefore the purchase notice given by the petitioners is invalid and therefore, as the petitioners have no locus to file the writ petition they are not entitled to relief of declarations as claimed in the petition to declare that the subject properties are deemed to be de-reserved since no steps have been taken by the respondents to acquire the said properties within one year of service of the said notice. {Para 20}

27. In the first place we shall deal with the objection raised by the contesting respondents that as along with purchase notice the petitioners did not annex the documents of their ownership/title to the subject properties which is mandatory requirement of purchase notice as per Section 127 of the MRTP Act the said notice is invalid and hence the petitioners are not entitled to de-reservation of the subject properties as claimed by them. On perusal of purchase notice (Exh. F) it does not show that alongwith said notice the petitioners had enclosed the documents of their title to the subject properties. Moreover, it is not their case in the petition that along with purchase notice which was sent by them on 29.09.2014 by RPAD they had annexed the documents of their ownership to the subject properties.

32. For the reasons discussed above we hold that the petitioners have failed to prove that the purchase notice (Exh. F) was served on the respondents with the documents of title by hand. Thus, as the purchase notice was not served on the respondents authorities with the documents of title to the subject properties and that ownership of petitioners is disputed by respondent the said notice is invalid. Therefore, there is substance in the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate appearing for respondent No. 4 relying upon the ratio laid down in the case of Jaika Vanijya Ltd. Nagpur and another (MANU/MH/0706/2013 : 2013 (3) AIR Bom R 1432) (supra) and Perfect Machine Tools Co. Ltd., (MANU/MH/0202/2008 : 2008 (2) AIR Bom R 642) (supra) that the purchase notice is invalid as the documents of title were not attached to it.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Writ Petition No. 5312 of 2016

Decided On: 20.03.2018

Mariyam Begum Abdul Jalil Khan and Ors.  Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.V. Gangapurwala and S.M. Gavhane, JJ.

Author: S.M. Gavhane, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/1536/2018.

Print Page

Whether the court can direct state to acquire a land?

 The State or its functionaries cannot be directed to acquire the land as the acquisition is on its satisfaction that the land is required for a public purpose. If the State was inactive for long number of years, the Courts would not issue direction for acquisition of land, which is exercise of power of the State to invoke its rights of eminent domain. {Para 8}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 1965 of 2022

 Laxmikant and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Print Page

Can a land owner be restrained from using his land in a particular manner if his land was reserved for a public purpose under a development plan?

The land was reserved for a public purpose way back in 2002. By such reservation, the land owner could not use the land for any other purpose for ten years. After the expiry of ten years, the land owner had served a notice calling upon the Respondents to acquire the land but still the land was not acquired. The land 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 a particular manner, the said restriction cannot be kept open-ended for indefinite period. The Statute has provided a period of ten years to acquire the land Under Section 126 of the Act. Additional one year is granted to the land owner to serve a notice for acquisition prior to the amendment by Maharashtra Act No. 42 of 2015. Such time line is sacrosanct and has to be adhered to by the State or by the Authorities under the State.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 1965 of 2022

 Laxmikant and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.

Author: Hemant Gupta, J.

Decided On: 23.03.2022

Citation: MANU/SC/0353/2022

Print Page

Whether it is necessary for govt to acquire land which is reserved under development plan?

The Scheme of the Act (i.e. M.R.T.P.) makes it clear that for the purpose of bringing about extinction of right of a private owner, the whole process of the Land Acquisition Act starting withsection 6 has to be gone into, and it automatically also allows the reference under section 18 and so on. For market value purpose, however there is a sub-section (3) of section 126 of the M.R.T.P. Act. Sub-section (3) provides with regard to the date with reference to which the market value of the land under acquisition has to be fixed.1

Bombay High Court

Dinkar Purushottam Dani vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 September, 1999

Equivalent citations: 2001 (1) BomCR 91

Bench: N Pandya, R Kochar

Print Page