Bombay HC on Lapsing of Reservation in the Development Plan & Purchase Notice
Judgment dated 27.8.2026 of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.11370 of 2025 of Sachin Janardan Daivadnya and another Vs. Ichalkaranji Municipal Corporation Thr Administrator Commissioner and others
Lapsing of Reservation in the Development Plan – Section 127 MRTP Act
In the Development Plan of 1981 for Ichalkaranji City, the land of the petitioner was reserved for high school and playground. In the revised Development Plan of 2012, the reservation was continued.
On 10.7.2022, the period of 10 years was over. However, no steps were taken to acquire the land.
On 5.6.2023, the petitioner served purchase notice under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, to acquire the land in two years.
On 15.2.2024, the revision of the Development Plan was undertaken with reservation of playground and D.P. road However, no steps to acquire the reserved land were taken in two years period.
Though, a dispute is sought to be raised that the notice was not received by the Commissioner nor by the Town Planning Department, paragraph 4 of the affidavit-in-reply of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 admits that the notice was inwarded in the Baranishi (Inward) Section of the Corporation under inward no. 4702.
In view of the Respondent’s own pleading in the affidavit, it is evident that the purchase notice was duly served upon the Corporation, and whether it is received by the Commissioner or not is an internal issue of the Corporation.
In light of the settled position in law, the proposed reservation of playground and proposed 24 feet wide D.P. road by virtue of notification under Section 26 of the MRTP Act will not affect the lapsed reservation and the right which has accrued to the Petitioner to utilize the land for development as permissible.
The reservation to the Petitioner’s land is deemed to have lapsed, and the land has now become available for the purpose of development, as permissible in case of adjacent land under the relevant plan. 11. Learned counsel for the Petitioner is also right in contending that once a reservation is deemed to have been lapsed, because of the land not being acquired for the purpose within the statutory period, then the right which accrues to the owner cannot be taken away by putting the land again under reservation in the revised D.P. 12. In light of the settled position in law, the proposed reservation of playground and proposed 24 feet wide D.P. road by virtue of notification under Section 26 of the MRTP Act will not affect the lapsed reservation and the right which has accrued to the Petitioner to utilize the land for development as permissible. 13. In light of the above, the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b)(i)(ii) which reads as under : b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature of Article-226 of the Constitution of India; (i) to hold and/or declare that reservation in respect of Petitioners’ land bearing Revision Survey No. 689/A/3 admeasuring about 2000 sq. mtrs. situated at Ichalkaranji Dist. Kolhapur reserved being Reservation Site No. I/10 for “High School and Play Ground” in sanctioned Development Plan (Revised) of Ichalkaranji City, has lapsed under the provisions of Section 127 of the said M.R.T.P. Act, 1966 and that the said land is available to the Petitioners / Owners for the purpose of development or otherwise, permissible in the case of adjacent land under the relevant Development Plan. (ii) The Respondent No. 3 State of Maharashtra the Urban Development Department be kindly directed to issue necessary Notification forthwith as required u/s. 127(2) of MRTP Act, 1966 that the reservation, allocation, designation bearing Reservation Site no. I/10 for the purpose of “High School and Playground” on the Petitioners land bearing Survey No. 689/A/3 of which City Survey No. 9718 at Ichalkaranji Dist. Kolhapur within Ichalkaranji Municipal Corporation admeasuring about 2000 sq. mtrs. in sanctioned D. P. of Ichalkaranji City (revised) has deemed to have lapsed and available to the Petitioners for development as permissible under the law
