The case of Anant Keshav Rajegaonkar & Another v/s The State of Maharashtra, Through the Collector, Nashik & Others., arose after the Petitioners' land was initially reserved in the Sanctioned Development Plan of the Nasik Municipal Corporation in 1994. Following the expiry of the ten-year statutory period for acquisition in 2004, the Petitioners issued a Purchase Notice on January 24, 2009. As per Section 127 of the MRTP Act, the authorities had one year, until January 24, 2010, to either acquire the land or commence acquisition proceedings. It was undisputed that no such steps were taken until at least September 23, 2014, as revealed by an RTI response obtained by the Petitioners.

The Petitioners, represented by Mr. Vivek Punjabi, argued that the subsequent reservation of the same land for a "fair ground" in the Revised Development Plan of 2017, well after the one-year period following the Purchase Notice, was illegal. They also contended that they had duly submitted all necessary documents requested by the Respondents.

The Respondents, represented by Mr. M. L. Patil, attempted to defend their position by claiming the Purchase Notice was defective due to missing ownership documents and signatures. They also stated the Corporation's willingness to grant Transferable Development Rights (TDR) in lieu of acquisition, citing the revised development plan.

A division bench of the High Court, after hearing both sides and examining the records, framed two key issues: the validity of the Purchase Notice despite alleged missing documents, and the legality of the subsequent reservation after the statutory period.

The Court decisively ruled against the Respondents on both counts. Referring to Section 127(1) of the MRTP Act, the bench stated that the submission of title documents alongside the Purchase Notice is intended to facilitate a smooth transfer of title upon timely payment. However, the Court emphasized that once the stipulated period of 12 months (applicable in this case) from the service of the Purchase Notice expires without acquisition or commencement of acquisition steps, the land is deemed released from reservation. In such a scenario, the authorities cannot then raise the defense of a defective Purchase Notice due to missing documents.

The Court reasoned that the release of land from reservation does not involve a "transfer" of rights; rather, the land reverts to the owner, regardless of who that owner may be. Any ownership disputes are a matter for the civil courts. Therefore, the absence of title documents cannot be used as a shield by the authorities to avoid the consequences of their inaction within the statutory timeframe.

The Court also cited several precedents, including Dina Sohrab Hakim, M/s C. V. Shah, Popat Kisan Mhaske, and Chinmay Gurunath Parale, which consistently held that a Purchase Notice is not invalid solely due to the non-submission of title documents. The purpose of the notice is to inform the authority of the intent to have the reserved land acquired.

Regarding the subsequent reservation in the 2017 Revised Development Plan, the Court relied on its earlier ruling in Santu Sukhdeo Jaibhave, which held that the publication of a draft revised plan prior to the issuance of a Purchase Notice cannot extend the reservation if the land is not acquired within the statutory period following the notice.

In the present case, the Purchase Notice clearly identified the land. Furthermore, the Petitioners had submitted the requested documents via a letter dated September 11, 2009, bearing the Respondent's acknowledgement stamp. Therefore, the Court rejected the claim of a vague or incomplete notice.

Consequently, the Bombay High Court allowed the Writ Petition, directing the State Government to notify all concerned authorities about the lapsing of the reservation on the Petitioners' land within six weeks. In a broader directive, the Court also instructed the State to proactively notify the lapsing of reservations for all lands where acquisition steps have not been initiated within the statutory period after a Purchase Notice, aiming to prevent a flood of similar petitions and ensure timely action by the authorities.

Section 127, MAHARASHTRA REGIONAL AND TOWN PLANNING ACT - 1966  

MAHARASHTRA REGIONAL AND TOWN PLANNING ACT, 1966