High Court Quashes Rejection of Development Plan After Reservation Lapse, Orders Sanction and Costs.


08 April 2025 Property Law >> Personal Law  

In Shamrao Nanaso Shingan v/s State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Mumbai & Others., the Bombay High Court has set aside the rejection of a development plan submitted by an 82-year-old petitioner for their land in Malkapur, Satara district. The rejection was based on a reservation that had lapsed due to the failure of the Malkapur Nagar Parishad (Respondent No. 2) to initiate acquisition proceedings within the statutory timeframe.

The petitioner, owner of land bearing Survey No. 261/5B, had issued a Purchase Notice under Section 49(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) in April 2019, which was confirmed by the State Government in October 2019. As per Section 49(7) of the MRTP Act, the Respondent No. 2 was obligated to apply for land acquisition within one year of this confirmation, a deadline that expired in October 2020. No such action was taken.


 

 

Despite the automatic lapse of the reservation and the land becoming available for development, the Respondent No. 2 rejected the petitioner's development plan in February 2021, citing the same reservation. The District Collector's office confirmed in June 2022 that no acquisition application had been filed. Furthermore, a prior report indicated that the organization for which the land was initially reserved did not even exist within the Respondent No. 2's jurisdiction.

The High Court strongly criticized the Respondent No. 2's inaction and the subsequent rejection of the development plan as illegal and causing undue harassment to the elderly petitioner. The court reproduced Section 49(7) of the MRTP Act, emphasizing the automatic lapse of reservation upon failure to initiate acquisition within the stipulated year.

Finding the rejection order unsustainable, the court allowed the petition, granting the following reliefs:
  • The impugned rejection order dated February 4, 2021, was quashed and set aside.
  • The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (Malkapur Nagar Parishad and the Chief Officer respectively) were directed to forthwith consider the petitioner's submitted building plans and grant sanction in accordance with the law.
  • Exemplary costs of ?5 lakhs were imposed on the Respondent No. 2 for rejecting the plans on a non-existent ground and causing unnecessary harassment to the petitioner.
The petitioner, through their counsel, undertook to withdraw a previously filed appeal. The court affirmed the petitioner's right to develop the land as per the applicable regulations.
This ruling underscores the importance of adherence to statutory timelines in land acquisition processes and holds authorities accountable for causing undue hardship to landowners through unwarranted rejection of development plans after reservations have legally lapsed.


  Section 49, MAHARASHTRA REGIONAL AND TOWN PLANNING ACT - 1966  

  MAHARASHTRA REGIONAL AND TOWN PLANNING ACT, 1966