SC: CIRP Can Continue Despite Fraudulent Insolvency Plea That Triggered It  ||  Delhi HC: Senior Citizen May Seek Eviction of Daughter-in-Law for Ill-Treatment  ||  Delhi HC: Mere Possession of Visa Does Not Confer an Unconditional Right to Enter India  ||  Delhi HC: Every Insensitive or Objectionable Matrimonial Act Does Not Amount to Cruelty  ||  J&K&L HC: Fake Driving Licence Does Not Exonerate Insurer If Driver Has a Valid Licence  ||  P&H HC: Safety Council Report and CCTV Cannot Be Rejected at Charge Stage for Lack of Proof  ||  Delhi High Court Stays Rs. 213 Crore SAIL Payout to British Firm over Unstamped Arbitral Award  ||  Allahabad HC: Bar Council Cannot Suspend Advocate’s Licence Pending Disciplinary Inquiry  ||  SC: CIRP Need Not Be Set Aside Solely for Fraudulent Filing of Section 9 Plea  ||  Supreme Court: Compromise Decree Passed Without Impleading Necessary Party is Void    

Chetan and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:9242-DB) - (High Court of Bombay) (27 Feb 2024)

Owner cannot be deprived of his rights to the property after the statutory period has expired

MANU/MH/1186/2024

Property

By present Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, the Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to issue a notification in the Official Gazette as per Section 127(2) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 ("MRTP Act") that, the reservation for a 'Stadium' on the Petitioners' land has lapsed and the said land is available to the Petitioners to develop.

If the land reserved for any purpose specified in any plan under the MRTP Act is not acquired by agreement as provided under Section 127 then the reservation, allotment or designation shall be deemed to have lapsed and the land shall be deemed to be released from such reservation and shall become available to the owner for the purpose of development.

In the present case, the Respondents have not denied the stated facts. It is apparent that almost 20 years have lapsed since the reservation was sanctioned. As held in Girnar Traders vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., an owner cannot be deprived of his rights to the property after the statutory period has expired. In the present case too, it is admitted that no steps were taken to acquire the land as contemplated under Section 126 of the MRTP Act.

No steps as contemplated in law have been taken till date. The property cannot be held under reservation without acquisition in perpetuity. The owner cannot be denied the right to enjoy the fruits of development or compensation. The Respondents have clearly failed in performing their duty. Reservation bearing site has lapsed and the said land is available to Petitioner for the purpose of development or otherwise, as is permissible. The State is directed to issue a notification under Section 127(2) of the MRTP Act and publish the same in official Gazette with respect to lapsing of reservation.

Tags : RESERVATION   LAND   EXPIRY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved