IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7801 OF 2002

Prakash R. Gupta ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Lonavala Municipal Council & Ors. ...Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Division

Bench of the High Court, dated 9th November, 2001.  The detailed facts are given in

the impugned judgment of the High Court and it is not necessary for us to repeat the

same here except where necessary for deciding the appeal.

The appellant is the owner of the land in dispute.  His land was reserved

under  a  development  plan  for  a  certain  college  but  that  college  got  disaffiliated.

Thereafter, a minor modification under Section 37 of the Maharashtra Regional and

Town Planning Act, 1966 (in short, 'the Act') was issued and it was said to be allotted

to the present respondent No.3.

However, it appears that the land was not acquired within  the ten  year

period  mentioned in Section 127 of the

   ..2/-

-2-

aforesaid Act.  Section 127 states as under:

“Lapsing of reservations

If any land reserved, allotted or designated for any purpose specified in any plan under this Act is not acquired by agreement within ten  years  from  the  date  on  which  a  final  Regional  plan,  or  final Development plan comes into force or if proceedings for the acquisition of such land under this Act or under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, are  not  commenced  within  such  period,  the  owner  or  any  person interested  in  the  land  may  serve  notice  on  the  Planning  Authority, Development Authority or as the case may be, Appropriate Authority to that effect; and if within six months from the date of the service of such notice, the land is not acquired or no steps as aforesaid are commenced for  its  acquisition,  the  reservation,  allotment  or  designation  shall  be deemed to have lapsed, and thereupon the land shall be deemed to be released  from  such  reservation,  allotment  or  designation  and  shall become  available  to  the  owner  for  the  purpose  of  development  as otherwise, permissible in the case of adjacent land under the relevant plan.”

It is not disputed that the land was not acquired within ten years from the

date on which the final Regional plan or final Development plan came into force and

no proceedings  for acquisition  of such land under the Land Acquisition Act were

commenced within the aforesaid period of ten years.  After the said period of ten

years, the appellant, who was the owner of the land, served a notice on respondent

No.1 as required by Section 127 calling upon the said authority to acquire the said

land within six months or take  steps within  that  period,  but neither  was  the land

     ...3/-

-3-

acquired within the further period of six months nor were any steps taken to acquire

it.  Hence, in our opinion, the reservation lapsed and the land has to be released in

favour of the appellant.

The High Court, however, has taken the view that in view of Section 49 of

the Act, there is no lapse of the  reservation.  We do not agree.  In our opinion, the

scheme contemplated by Section 49 is  totally different from that contemplated by

Section 127.  In Section 49, there is no period of ten years as mentioned in Section

127.  In Section 49, the owner has to satisfy one of the three conditions mentioned

therein which is not so in Section 127.  Thus,  reference to Section 49 by the High

Court was, in our opinion, totally misconceived and uncalled for.

In  view of  the  above,  we  allow  this  appeal  and  set  aside  the  impugned

judgment of the High Court and direct that the land in question shall be released

forthwith in favour of the appellant.

No order as to costs.

                         ...................J.               (MARKANDEY KATJU)

                        ...................J.

                                       (AFTAB ALAM) New Delhi, December 02, 2008.