top of page

The procedure under Section 127 of the Land acquisition Act must be followed only after ten years h

MOHANDAS AND OTHERS  v.  THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS CIVIL APPEAL NO.831 OF 2020,(@ SLP(C)No. 20585 of 2015) – January 29, 2020.

CORAM: Two judge bench comprising of Justice MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR and Justice K.M. JOSEPH.

The appellants were owners of different plots. A development plan was issued under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 where the entire land was reserved for construction of shopping complex. The appellants objected the same and approached the respondent1 with detailed representation. The appellant’s property was shown as reserved for shopping complex and vegetable market. A writ petition was filed seeking relief which was dismissed by the HC.

The counsel for the appellants pointed out that the Development plan was made long back and notice was given u/s 127 of the Act. The judgments Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. and others, Chhabildas v. State of Maharashtra and others were quoted.

The counsel for the respondent1 pointed out Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Dr. Hakimwadi Tenants’ Association and others, Girnar traders v. State of Maharashtra and others, Girnar Traders (3) v. State of Maharashtra. It was quoted that S.127 deals with lapsing of reservation. Also S.49 was quoted which deals with a notice to acquire land in certain situation.  Thus the step towards acquisition would commence when State Government permits acquisition. Reliance was made on Shrirampur Municipal Council v. Satyabhamabai Bhimaji Dawkher , Prafulla C. Dave and others v. Municipal Commissioner and others.

 The court observed that the appellants are governed by the Act and the reservation under the original Development Plan would cease to impact the appellants if the notice u/s 127 was issued. Thus the final Development Plan has not lapsed and it is revised u/s 38 of the Act.

This court noted down the judgments of Hasmukhrai V. Mehta, T.Vijayalakshmi and others v. Town Planning Member and another.

The Court stated that the case that may arise under Section 49 of the Act, the procedure under Section 127 of the Act must be followed which means that after ten years had lapsed, a second purchase notice had to be served under Section 127 of the Act in order that lapsing could take place under the said Section.

“Therefore, on the facts, particularly, having regard to the fact that they have purchased the property apparently knowing that the property was subjected to reservation, and as also we have found that their case, based on the notice of previous owners, would not hold good in law and as the subsequent revision of the Plan has come into force with effect from 15.05.2012, we do not find that this is a case where we should exercise our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution”.

Thus this court held that the appellants can bring a cause of action to give notice u/s 127 of the Act after a waiting period of 2 years. No opinion is expressed on invoking S.49.

Thus this appeal is dismissed leaving open all the remedies available to the appellants.

– PRIYADHARSHINI R

コメント


Articles

bottom of page