# SHRIRAMPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SHRIRAMPUR v. SATYABHAMABAI BHIMAJI DAWKHER AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [2013] 2 S.C.R. 664
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2013-04-01
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 2733 of 2013
- **Bench:** G.S. Singhvi, H.L. Gokhale, Ranjana Prakash Desai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/shrirampur-municipal-council-shrirampur-v-satyabhamabai-bhimaji-dawkher-and-28745
- **Pages:** 44

## Headnote

Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966:
s. 127 rlw s. 126 - Land reserved not acquired/no steps
commenced towards acquisition within six months of service
of notice uls 127 - Held: The reservation shall be deemed to
have lapsed and the land shall be deemed to have been
released from such reservation so as to enable the owner to
develop the same - Steps towards acquisition would really
commence when State Government takes active steps for
acquisition of particular piece of land which leads to
publication of declaration uls 6 of 1894 Act - Expression "no
steps as aforesaid" used in s. 127 of 1966 Act has to be read
E in the context of provisions of 1894 Act and mere passing of
a resolution by Planning Authority or sending of a letter to
Collector or even to State Government cannot be treated as
commencement of proceedings for acquisition of land under
1966 Act or 1894 Act - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.6.
F
In the instant appeals filed by the Municipal Council,
the question for consideration before the Court was:
whether reservation of the parcels of land owned by the
respondents in the Regional plans/Development plans
G prepared under the Maharashtra Regional and Town
Planning Act, 1966 would be deemed to have lapsed
because the same were not acquired or no steps were
commenced in that respect within six months of the
service of notice u/s 127 of that Act.
H
664
STATE OF J & KAND ORS. v. SAT PAL
661
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
persons who have been appointed on merit against the
A
said 27 vacancies, and as such they could not have been
appointed in excess of the number of posts advertised as
the currency of select list had expired as soon as the
number of posts advertised are filled up, therefore,
appointment beyond the number of posts advertised would
B
amount to filling up future vacancies meant for direct
candidates in violation of quota rules. Therefore, the
appellants are not entitled to claim any relief for
themselves. The question that remains for consideration
is whether there is any ground for challenging the c
regularisation of the private respondents."
The determination rendered by this Court in the aforesaid
judgments, substantiates the view expressed by us in the
foregoing paragraphs.
D 1
14. It is in the background of the aforesaid factual and legal
position, that the High Court recorded some observations in its
order dated 29.10.2011 passed in Contempt (SWP no.157 of
2011 ). The aforesaid observations were advisory in nature.
Rather than initiating action against the appellants for having
E
missed the point, while considering the claim of the respondent
in contempt jurisdiction, the High Court in its wisdom required
the appellants to correct the mistake committed by the
appellants. The High Court did not, in the first instance, initiate
any coercive action against the appellants. In the aforesaid view
F
of the matter it is apparent, that the appellants unnecessarily
preferred a letters patent appeal to assail the order of the High
Court dated 29.10.2011, on a technical plea, that the High Court
in exercise of its contempt jurisdiction could not have dealt with
the merits of the claim of the respondent. The same issue is
G
being pursued now before us on technical grounds of
maintainability of the letters patent appeal preferred by the
appellants before the High Court (out of which the instant
appeals have arisen).
15. In so far as the technical objections raised by the
H
662
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 2 S.C.R.
A appellants is concerned, reliance, in the first instance was
placed by the learned counsel on Prithawi Nath Ram v. State
of Jharkhand & Others, (2004) 7 SCC 261, wherein this Court
opined, that a court in exercise of its contempt jurisdiction,
dealing with an application alleging non compliance of its
B earlier order, could not examine the rightness or wrongness of
that order, nor could it issue further directions. Reliance was
also placed on V. M. Manohar Prasad v. N. Ratnam Raju &
Anr., (20

## Text

_Characters 0–39,472 of 87,202. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39472 for what follows._

[2013] 2 S.C.R. 664
A
SHRIRAMPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SHRIRAMPUR
B
c
D
v.
SATYABHAMABAI BHIMAJI DAWKHER AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 2733 of 2013 etc.)
APRIL 1, 2013.
[G.S. SINGHVI, H.L. GOKHALE AND RANJANA
PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.]
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966:
s. 127 rlw s. 126 - Land reserved not acquired/no steps
commenced towards acquisition within six months of service
of notice uls 127 - Held: The reservation shall be deemed to
have lapsed and the land shall be deemed to have been
released from such reservation so as to enable the owner to
develop the same - Steps towards acquisition would really
commence when State Government takes active steps for
acquisition of particular piece of land which leads to
publication of declaration uls 6 of 1894 Act - Expression "no
steps as aforesaid" used in s. 127 of 1966 Act has to be read
E in the context of provisions of 1894 Act and mere passing of
a resolution by Planning Authority or sending of a letter to
Collector or even to State Government cannot be treated as
commencement of proceedings for acquisition of land under
1966 Act or 1894 Act - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.6.
F
In the instant appeals filed by the Municipal Council,
the question for consideration before the Court was:
whether reservation of the parcels of land owned by the
respondents in the Regional plans/Development plans
G prepared under the Maharashtra Regional and Town
Planning Act, 1966 would be deemed to have lapsed
because the same were not acquired or no steps were
commenced in that respect within six months of the
service of notice u/s 127 of that Act.
H
664
STATE OF J & KAND ORS. v. SAT PAL
661
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
persons who have been appointed on merit against the
A
said 27 vacancies, and as such they could not have been
appointed in excess of the number of posts advertised as
the currency of select list had expired as soon as the
number of posts advertised are filled up, therefore,
appointment beyond the number of posts advertised would
B
amount to filling up future vacancies meant for direct
candidates in violation of quota rules. Therefore, the
appellants are not entitled to claim any relief for
themselves. The question that remains for consideration
is whether there is any ground for challenging the c
regularisation of the private respondents."
The determination rendered by this Court in the aforesaid
judgments, substantiates the view expressed by us in the
foregoing paragraphs.
D 1
14. It is in the background of the aforesaid factual and legal
position, that the High Court recorded some observations in its
order dated 29.10.2011 passed in Contempt (SWP no.157 of
2011 ). The aforesaid observations were advisory in nature.
Rather than initiating action against the appellants for having
E
missed the point, while considering the claim of the respondent
in contempt jurisdiction, the High Court in its wisdom required
the appellants to correct the mistake committed by the
appellants. The High Court did not, in the first instance, initiate
any coercive action against the appellants. In the aforesaid view
F
of the matter it is apparent, that the appellants unnecessarily
preferred a letters patent appeal to assail the order of the High
Court dated 29.10.2011, on a technical plea, that the High Court
in exercise of its contempt jurisdiction could not have dealt with
the merits of the claim of the respondent. The same issue is
G
being pursued now before us on technical grounds of
maintainability of the letters patent appeal preferred by the
appellants before the High Court (out of which the instant
appeals have arisen).
15. In so far as the technical objections raised by the
H
662
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 2 S.C.R.
A appellants is concerned, reliance, in the first instance was
placed by the learned counsel on Prithawi Nath Ram v. State
of Jharkhand & Others, (2004) 7 SCC 261, wherein this Court
opined, that a court in exercise of its contempt jurisdiction,
dealing with an application alleging non compliance of its
B earlier order, could not examine the rightness or wrongness of
that order, nor could it issue further directions. Reliance was
also placed on V. M. Manohar Prasad v. N. Ratnam Raju &
Anr., (2004) 13 SCC 610, wherein this Court held, that a
contempt court was precluded from adjudicating on the merits
c of a controversy by passing any supplemental order, in addition
to the order non compliance of which, was the basis of initiating
contempt proceedings. Finally, reliance was placed on
Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. & Others v. Chunila/
Nanda & Others (2006) 5 SCC 399, dealing with the
"
0
maintainability of an intra-court appeal against an order passed
by the High Court in exercise of its contempt jurisdiction.
16. It is not as if the pleas raised at the hands of the
appellants are not fully legitimate. In the facts and circumstances
of this case, for reasons which would emerge from our instant
E order, we would decline to invoke the jurisdiction vested in us
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, for debating and
deciding the technical pleas advanced by the appellants. We
would rather invoke our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India for doing complete justice in the cause in
F hand. Entertaining the instant appeals would defeat the ends
of justice for which the respondent Sat Pal had approached the
High Court. Entertaining the objections filed by the appellants
would result in deviating from the merits of the claim raised by
the respondent Sat Pal, before the High Court.
G
H
17. It gives us no pleasure to record that the State is not
an adversary, and ought not have behaved in the manner it has
chosen in the facts and circumstances of this case. In the first
instance, it failed to even file a response before the High Court,
to the writ petition preferred by the respondent Sat Pal. The
SHRIRAMPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SHRIRAMPUR v.
665
SATYABHAMABAI BHIMAJI DAWKHER
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
A
HELD: 1.1 Section 126(1) of the Maharashtra
Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 lays down that
when any land is required or reserved for any of the
public purposes specified in any plan or scheme, the 8
Planning Authority, Development Authority, or any
Appropriate Authority can acquire the same as
mentioned therein. Section 126(2) empowers the State
Government to make a declaration u/s 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. Proviso to this sub-section fixes the C
time limit of one year for making such declaration. Section
126(3) lays down that on publication of a declaration u/s
6 of the 1894 Act, the Collector shall proceed to take order
for the acquisition of the land under the 1894 Act and the
provisions of that Act shall apply to such acquisition with
the modification regarding market value as specified in D
Clauses (i) to (iii) of that sub-section. Section 126(4)
contains a non obstante clause and provides that if a
declaration is not made within the period referred to in
sub-s. (2), or having been made, such period expired at
the commencement of the Maharashtra Regional Town E
Planning (Amendment) Act, 1993, the State Government
can make fresh declaration under the 1894 Act. [para 17]
[686-A-B, E-H]
1.2 Section 127 of the 1966 Act lays down that if any F
land reserved, allotted or designated for any purpose
specified in any plan prepared and sanctioned under the
1966 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 G
the acquisition of such land under the 1966 Act read with
the 1894 Act are not commenced within that period, the
owner or any person interested in the land may serve
notice on the Planning Authority, Development Authority
or Appropriate Authority to that effect. That section H
666
SUPREME COURT REPORTS.
[2013] 2 S.C.R.
A
further lays down that if the land is not acquired or no
steps are commenced for its acquisition within six
months from the date of service of notice, the reservation
etc. shall be deemed to have lapsed and the land shall
be deemed to have been released from such reservation
B
etc. so as to enable the owner to develop the same. [para
17] [686-H; 687-A-D)
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Dr.
Hakimwadi Tenants' Association 1988 SCR 21 =1988 (Supp)
C
SCC 55; Gimar Traders v. State of Maharashtra (Gimar
Traders II) 2007 (9 ) SCR 383 = 2007 (73) SCC 555; and
Gimar Traders v. State of Maharashtra (Gimar Traders Ill)
2011 (3) SCR 1 = (2011) 3 sec 1 - relied on.
1.3 This Court is further of the view that the majority
D in Girnar Traders (II) had rightly observed that steps
towards the acquisition would really commence when the
State Government takes active steps for the acquisition
of the particular piece of land which leads to publication
of the declaration u/s 6 of the 1894 Act. Any other
E
interpretation of the scheme of ss. 126 and 127 of the
1966 Act will make the provisions wholly unworkable and
leave the landowner at the mercy of the Planning
Authority and the State Government. [para 21) [698-F-G]
1.4 The expression "no steps as aforesaid" used in
F
s. 127 of the 1966 Act has to be read in the context of the
provisions of the 1894 Act and mere passing of a
resolution by the Planning Authority or sending of a letter
to the Collector or even the State Government cannot be
treated as commencement of the proceedings for the
G acquisition of land under the 1966 Act or the 1894 Act.
By enacting ss. 125 to 127 of the 1966 Act, the State
Legislature has made a definite departure from the
scheme of acquisition enshrined in the 1894 Act. But a
holistic reading of these provisions makes it clear that
H while engrafting the substance of some of the provisions
SHRIRAMPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SHRfRAMPUR v.
667
SATYABHAMABAI BHIMAJI DAWKHER
of the 1894 Act in the 1966 Act and leaving out other
A
provisions, the State Legtslature has ensured that the
landowners/other interested persons, whose land is
utilized for execution of the Development plan/Town
Planning Scheme, etc. are not left high and dry. This is
the reason why time limit of ten years has been
B
prescribed ins. 31(5) and also u/ss 126 and 127 of the
1966 Act for acquisition of land, with a stipulation that if
the land is not acquired within six months of the service
of notice u/s 127 or steps are not commenced for
acquisition, reservation of the land will be deemed to c
have lapsed. [para 22] [698-H; 699-A-E]
1.5 There is no conflict between the judgments of the
two-Judge Bench in Dr. Hakimwadi Tenants' Association
and the majority judgment in Gimar Traders (//). In both the
cases, this Court emphasized that if any private land is
shown as reserved, allotted or designated for any
purpose specified in any Development plan, the same
may be acquired within ten years either by agreement or
by following the procedure prescribed under the 1894
Act, and if proceedings for the acquisition of land are not
commenced within that period and a further period of six
months from the date of service of notice u/s 127 of the
1966 Act, then the land shall be deemed to have been
released from such reservation, allotment, etc. Further,
the observations contained in paragraph 133 of Gimar
Traders (Ill) unequivocally support the majority judgment
in Girnar Traders (//). [para 20 and 24] [697-H; 698-A-B;
705-D-E]
D
E
F
1.6 This Court, therefore, holds that the majority
G
judgment in Gimar Traders (II) lays down correct law and
does not require reconsideration by a larger Bench. It is
further held that the orders impugned in the instant
appeals are legally correct and do not call for interference
by this Court. [para 25] [705-E]
H
A
B
668
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 2 S.C.R.
Case Law Reference:
2007 (9) SCR
relied on
para 3.6
1988 SCR 21
relied on
para 13
2011 (3) SCR 1
relied on
para 13
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
2733 of 2013.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.03.2009 of the
c High Court of Judicature at Bombay, bench at Aurangabad in
Writ Petition No. 4774 of 2006.
D
WITH
C.A. Nos. 2735, 2736, 2739, 2741, 2742, 2747, 2748, 2749
& 2750 of 2013.
Shekhar Naphade, Vibhu Bhakru, Atul Y. Chitale, V.V. Giri,
R. Balasubramanian, Ravindra K. Adsure, Jayashree Wad,
Ashish Wad, Mayank K. Sagar, Vinay Navare, Satyajeet
Kumar, Abha R. Sharma, Manish Pitale, C.S. Ashri, M.P. Jha,
E Ram Eqbal Roy, Harshvardhan Jha, Karan Kanwal, Suchitra A.
Chitale, Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Rajshri Duvey, Narendra
Kumar, Pravesh Thakur, Viraj Kadam, Sidaarth Shinde, D.M.
Nargolkar, M.Y. Deshmukh, Abhijeet B. Kale, Yatin M. Jagtap.
Shrikant R. Deshmukh, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Shankar Chillarge,
F Asha Gopalan Nair for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G.S. SINGHVI, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. The question which arises for consideration in these
G appeals is whether reservation of the parcels of land owned by
the respondents in the Regional plans/Development plans
prepared under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning
Act, 1966 (for short, 'the 1966 Act') will be deemed to have
lapsed because the same were not acquired or no steps were
H commenced in that respect within six months of the service of
SHRIRAMPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SHRIRAMPUR v.
669
SATYABHAMABAI BHIMAJI DAWKHER [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
notice under Section 127 of that Act.
3. For the sake of. convenience, we shall first notice the
facts from the record of the appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.
9934/2009.
A
3.1 Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are the owners in possession
B
of the land comprised in Gat Nos. 44/1 /2 and 44/1 /4, CTS No.
2141 measuring about 2 hectares and 40 ares situated at
Shrirampur Taluka, Shrirampur (Maharashtra).
3.2 In the Development plan prepared for Shrirampur
under the 1966 Act, which was sanctioned by Director of Town
C
Planning, Maharashtra vide order dated 9.8.1991 and enforced
with effect from 31.10.1991, the land of respondent Nos. 1 to
5 was shown as reserved for primary school and playground.
However, the same was not acquired in accordance with the
provisions of Section 126 of the 1966 Act read with the Land
D
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the 1894 Act').
3.3 After eleven and a half years of the reservation of their
land, respondent Nos. 1 to 5 issued purchase notice dated
29.5.2003 under Section 127 of the 1966 Act, which was duly
served upon the Chief Officer of the appellant - Shrirampur
E
Municipal Council, Shrirampur. The relevant portions of the
notice are extracted below:
"PURCHASE NOTICE
UNDER SECTION 127
To,
Hon. Chief Officer,
Nagar Parishad, Shrirampur,
Dist. Ahmednagar
Date:- 29.5.2003 ·
F
G
Reference:-Development Plan (R) Shrirampur approved
Subject:- Purchase Notice Under Section 127 of H
670
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 2 S.C.R.
A
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
We, the undersigned
1) Shrimati Satyabhamabai Bhimaji Dawkhar, Age - 70,
Occupation - Farming, House work,
2) Alka Shivaji Dawkher, age 47 years, Occupation -
household 86 Agril
3) Sudhil Shivaji Dawkher, age 28 years, Occupation :
Agril
4) Vijay Shivaji Dawkher, age 26 years, Occupation: Agril
5) Rushikesh Shivaji Dawkher, age 24 years, Occupation:
Agril
All R/o Mahadeo Mala, Shrirampur, Ward No. 7, Dist.
Ahmednagar.
Hereby give notice under Section 127 of the above stated
Act that, the land located within the city limits of Shrirampur
out of Gat No.44 admeasuring approx. 2.5 Hectare is
owned by me and it has been reserved as Reservation
No.40 in Town Planning Scheme No.4. This reservation
has been reserved approx. 1 Acre for play ground. The
sanctioned Development Plan (R) Shrirampur of
Shrirampur City has been granted final sanction by the
Director, Town Planning (State) Pune vide their notification
no. D. P. Shrirampur (Part) R/TPV 4-2837 Dated 31/12/
91 and although more than 10 years duration has passed
after getting the final sanction to the Development Plan the
Nagar Parishad has taken no action to acquire th!'! said
land.
Through this notice you are being notified that, in case of
your failure to take suitable action to acquire the said land
within 6 months of the receipt of the said notice the land
SHRIRAMPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SHRIRAMPUR v.
671
SATYABHAMABAI BHIMAJI DAWKHER [G.S. £1NGHVI, J.]
under reservation in Gat no. 44 shall become free from
A
reservation. Please take note. The said notice is being
issued in this behalf."
3.4 The notice issued by respondent Nos.1 to 5 was
considered in the meeting of the General Body of the appellant
8
held on 30.8.2003 and the following resolution was passed:
"It is seen from the note submitted on the above subject
that the land bearing Gat No. 44, CTS No.2141 (part) within
the Municipal Limit is owned by Smt. Satyabhamabai
Davkhar, out of which 4815 sq.mtr. of area is reserved for
C
Play Ground, vide reservation No.40 and for Primary
School & Play Ground, vide reservation No.41. Since the
Municipal Council has not acquired the land under said
reservations after 10 years of sanction of Development
Plan, the land owner Smt. Davkhar has served the
D
purchase notice under section 127 of Maharastra Regional
and Town Planning Act, 1966.
The above referred lands are included in Town Planning
Scheme No.IV. But the above reservations are not included
E
in Draft sanctioned Town Planning Scheme No. IV. And
hence the notice served by the owner is tenable and also
if the land acquisition proposal is not submitted to the
· Collector within the period of Six months from the date of
issue of notice the land will be released from reservations.
Therefore, by passing this Resolution the sanction is given
F
to initiate the land acquisition process for the above two
reserved sites. And accordingly the proposal should be
submitted immediately to the Collector, Ahmednagar. The
expenses that would be required for the land acquisition
G
and to take possession and the allied expenses are also
hereby allowed."
3.5 In furtherance of the aforesaid resolution, the President
of the appellant sent communication dated 24.12.2003 to
H
672
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 2 S.C.R.
A Collector, Ahmednagar and requested him to take action for
the acquisition of land comprised in Gat No. 44, CTS No. 2141
(part). The Collector sought clarification on some issues. The
appellant did the needful vide letter dated 9.2.2004. Thereafter,
land was got measured through City Survey Officer and
B proposal dated 25.1.2007 was submitted to the Collector for
its acquisition. The Collector passed order dated 17.4.2007
under Section 52-A of the 1894 Act and authorized SubDivisional Officer, Shrirampur to take the necessary steps.
3.6 In the meanwhile, respondent Nos. 1 to 5 filed Writ
C Petition No. 4774/2006 for grant of a declaration that the
reservation of their land stood lapsed in November, 2003
because the same had not been acquired within six months of
the service of notice under Section 127 of the 1966 Act. In
support of their plea, respondent Nos. 1 to 5 relied upon the
D judgment of this Court in Gimar Traders v. State of
Maharashtra and Others (2007) 7 SCC 555 (hereinafter
referred to as 'Gimar Traders II') and of the Division Bench of
the Bombay High Court in Shivram Kondaji Sathe and Others
E
v. State of Maharashtra and Others 2009 (2) ALL MR 347.
3. 7 The appellant contested the writ petition and pleaded
that in terms of resolution dated 30.8.2003, a proposal had
been sent to the Collector for the acquisition of land belonging
to respondent Nos. 1to5 and vide order dated 17.4.2007,.the
F latter authorised the Sub-Divisional Officer to do the needful.
3.8 The Division Bench of the High Court relied upon the
judgments in Shivram Kondaji Sathe and Others v. State of
Maharashtra and Others (supra) and Satyabhamabai v. State
of Maharashtra and Others (2008) 1 ALL MR 399 as also the
G judgment of this Court in Gimar Traders (II) and held that
reservation of the land in question will be deemed to have
lapsed because no steps were taken for acquisition thereof
within six months of the receipt of purchase notice. The High
Court also directed the appellant to de-reserve the land so as
H to enable the respondents to develop the same.
SHRIRAMPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SHRIRAMPUR v.
673
SATYABHAMABAI BHIMAJI DAWKHER [GS. SINGHVI, J.]
4. We may now briefly notice the facts from the other
A
appeals.
Appeal arising out of SLP(C)No.8756/2009
4.1 Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are the owners in possession
of land comprised in Gat No.92 (part) admeasuring 45,983
B
square meters situated at Shirasgaon within the municipal
boundary of the appellant. In the Development plan, 6,360
square meters land belonging to respondent Nos.1 to 4 was
shown as reserved for playground. They issued purchase notice
dated 20.6.2002 under Section 127 of the 1966 Act. Thereafter,
C
the General Body of the appellant passed resolution dated
3.8.2002 for sending a proposal to the District Collector for
initiation of the acquisition proceedings. After six months, the
appellant sent detailed proposal dated 6.12.2002 to the District
Collector for acquiring the land, but no concrete step was taken
D
in that regard.
4.2 Writ Petition No. 3626/2006 was filed by respondent
Nos. 1 to 4 for de-reservation of their land on the ground that
the same had not been acquired within ten years of
E
enforcement of the Development plan and expiry of six months
counted from the date of receipt of purchase notice. The
Division Bench of the High Court referred to the judgment of
this Court in Gimar Traders (II) and allowed the writ petition by
making the following observations:
F
"In face of clear dictum of the Supreme Court we have no
hesitation in rejecting the contention raised on behalf of
Respondents that they started acquisition proceedings
after receipt of purchase notice under Section 127 of the
said Act within time. In fact when the present Writ Petition
G
came up for admission after long period from the date of
filing, counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents
informed that till this date acquisition proposal is pending
with the Collector. To that effect we can safely rely on letter
dated 2117/2006 from -Respondent No.5 to Respondent
H
674
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 2 S.C.R.
A
No.2 forwarding some documents for the purpose of
starting acquisition proceedings in respect of Petitioners'
plot of land. Said letter is at page 36 in the present Petition.
Even though Respondent No.5 filed their affidavit in reply
dated 21/1112006 nowhere they stated that they complied
B
the notice under Section 127 of the said Act issued by the
Petitioners. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the
Respondents failed to acquire the Petitioners' property in
question within particular time as per MRTP Act."
C Appeal arising out of SLPCClNo.9617/2009
D
5. The facts of this appeal are identical to the appeal
arising out of SLP(C) No.9934/2009. The only difference is that
this appeal pertains to the land comprised in Gat No.44/2
admeasuring 5,536 square meters.
Appeal arising out of SLP(C)No.13280/2009
6. Delay condoned.
6.1 In the Development plan for Greater Mumbai, which
E was sanctioned on 23.12.1991, land comprised in CS 231 and
1/231, Byculla Division, Maulana Azad Road, E-Ward, Mumbai
admeasuring 2,526.78 square meters was shown as reserved
for recreation ground.
6.2 Respondent No.1 Prabhat (Stove and Lamp) Products
F Company Pvt. Ltd., which owns the land, issued purchase
notice dated 7.12.2005 to the Planning Authority, i.e., Municipal
Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) under Section 127 of
the 1966 Act. There is some dispute about receipt of the notice
by the competent authority but it is an admitted position that
G vide letter dated 15.12.2005, the Municipal Commissioner of
MCGM asked the Improvement Committee to initiate the
acquisition proceedings. On 3.6.2006, the Planning Authority
submitted a proposal to the State Government for taking action
in accordance with Section 126(1)(c) of the 1966 Act. The State
H Government issued notification dated 19.1.2007 under Section
SHRIRAMPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SHRIRAMPUR v.
675
SATYABHAMABAI BHIMAJI DAWKHER [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
126(2) and ( 4) of the 1966 Act read with Section 6 of the 1894
A
Act.
6.3 Writ Petition No .. 2303/2007 filed by respondent Nos.
1 and 2 for quashing Notification dated 19.1.2007 was allowed
by the High Court by relying upon the judgment of this Court in
B
Gimar Traders (II).
Appeal arising out of SLP(C)No.34943/2012
7.1 In the Development plan sanctioned for Pune Municipal
Corporation, which was notified on 5.1.1997, Plot No. 59, Gat
C
No.17 situated at Kondhwa Khurd, Pune admeasuring 4,400
square meters was shown as reserved for construction of
children's park.
7.2 Respondent -
Sahyadri Land Development
D
Corporation, which owned the land, issued purchase notice
· dated 17.6.2010 under Section 127 of the 1966 Act, but the
Planning Authority did not take steps for the acquisition of land.
Writ Petition No. 4457/2011 filed by the respondent was
allowed by the High Court by relying upon the judgment of this
E
Court in Gimar Traders (II) and the respondent was allowed to
develop the land.
Appeal arising out of SLP(C)No.36117/2012
8.1 In the Development plan sanctioned for Pune Municipal
Corporation, plot bearing CTS No.1135 (old 54) owned by
respondent Nos.1 and 2 situated at Sadashiv Peth was shown
F
as reserved for children's playground. After three years, the
Commissioner inspected the site and opined that the same
was not suitable for the purpose for which it was shown as
G
reserved. Thereupon, the Corporation passed resolution dated
19.4.1990 for de-reservation of the plot. The State Government
sanctioned the de-reservation in September, 1992 and directed
the Commissioner of the Corporation to take necessary action
under Section 37 of the 1966 Act. The latter issued notice dated
H
676
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 2 S.C.R.
A 18.5.1995 and invited objections against the proposed dereservation of the plot and its inclusion in the residential zone.
However, no final decision was taken in the matter in view of
circular dated 21.12.1995 issued by the State Government.
B
8.2 After 14 years, the Standing Committee of the
Corporation, in its meeting held on 2.6.2009, decided to take
steps for the acquisition of land belonging to respondent Nos.
1 and 2. This decision was approved by the General Body of
the Corporation vide resolution dated 23.7.2009. In compliance
C of that resolution, Deputy Chief Engineer of the Corporation
sent letter dated 10.8.2009 to the Special Land Acquisition
Officer to sanction initiation of the acquisition proceedings. On
20.5.2010, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 issued purchase notice
under Section 127 of the 1966 Act. Thereafter, they filed Writ
Petition No.9895/2011 for grant of a declaration that reservation
D of their plot has lapsed because the same was not acquired
within six months of the receipt of purchase notice. The Division
Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition and declared
that reservation of land belonging to respondent Nos. 1 and 2
will be deemed to have lapsed because steps were not taken
E for acquisition thereof.
Appeal arising out of SLPCClNo.36213/2012
9. The facts of this appeal are substantially similar to that
of the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 36117/2012 except
F that the plot owned by respondent Nos.1 to 5 is CST No.1134,
Sadashiv Peth, Pune admeasuring 567.72 square meters
whereas the plot which is subject matter of the other SLP is
CST No.1135, Sadashiv Peth, Pune. The reservation of CST
No.1134 was for children's playground. The High Court allowed
G Writ Petition No.9895/2011 filed by respondent Nos.1 to 5 on
the ground that the land had not been acquired within six months
of the receipt of purchase notice issued under Section 127 of
the 1966 Act.
H
SHRIRAMPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SHRIRAMPUR v.
677
SATYABHAMABAI BHIMAJI DAWKHER [G.S. SINGHVI, J.)
Appeal arising out of SLP(C)No.25742/2012
A
10. In theDevelopment plan of Shrirampur (part) (revised),
land bearing Gat No.108 (74 Are) belonging to respondent
No.1 was shown as reserved for garden and he was given
alternative plot in Gat No.92 (part). However, that Gat was also
B
reserved for playground/stadium. After nine years, the State
Government in exercise of the power vested in it under Section
86 (1) of the 1966 Act sanctioned the Town Planning Scheme.
Respondent No.1 issued notice dated 5.1.2002 under Section
127 of the 1966 Act. The same was received in the office of
the appellant on 8.1.2002. The General Body of the appellant
C
passed resolution dated 2.5.2002 whereby approval was
accorded to the acquisition of land comprised in Gat No.92
(part). Accordingly, letter dated 28.6.2002 was sent to District
Collector, Ahmednagar for initiation of the acquisition
proceedings. Writ Petition No.3399/2007 filed by respondent
D
No.1 for grant of a declaration that reservation of his plot had
lapsed on account of the Planning Authority's failure to take
steps for the acquisition of land within six months of the receipt
of purchase notice was allowed by the Division Bench of the
High Court vide order dated 27.7.2012.
E
Appeal arising out of SLP(C)No.26103/2012
11. In the Development plan of Shrirampur, Gat Nos. 91
and 92 (part) belonging to respondent Nos.1 to 4 were shown
as reserved for vegetable market and shopping centre and
F
also for library and cultural centre. The Town Planning Scheme
was sanctioned by the State Government on 22.9.1999. Some
of the owners issued purchase notice dated 2.8.2002.
Thereupon, the General Body of the appellant passed
resolution dated 14.10.2002 for commencement of the
G
acquisition proceedings. On 27.1.2003, the appellant sent
requisition to the District Collector for the acquisition of land
owned by respondent Nos.1 to 4. Writ Petition No.1314/2012
filed by them was allowed by the Division Bench of the High
Court on 26.7.2012 and it was declared that the reservation of
H
678
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 2 S.C.R.
A their land had lapsed because of the Planning Authority's failure
to acquire the land within six months of the receipt of purchase
notice.
Appeal arising out of SLP(C) ................ cc No.17030/2012
B
12. Delay condoned.
12.1 The factual matrix of the case is similar to the appeal
arising out of SLP (C) No.26103/2012. Respondent Nos.1 and
2 issued purchase notice, which was received by the
competent authority sometime in December, 2007. In the next
C six months no steps were taken for the acquisition of land.
Therefore, by applying the ratio of Girnar Traders (II). the High
Court declared that the reservation of the land belonging to
respondent Nos.1 and 2 has lapsed.
D Arguments
13. Shri Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel
appearing for some of the appellants, argued that the majority
judgment in Girnar Traders (II) deserves to be considered by a
larger Bench because the same is contrary to the plain
E language of Section 127 of the 1966 Act and the earlier
· judgment in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Dr.
Hakimwadi Tenants' Association 1988 (Supp) SCC 55.
Learned senior counsel then referred to the order reported as
Poona Timber Merchants and Saw Mill Owners Association
F
v. State of Maharashtra and Others 2008 (4) SCALE 737 and
other orders by which directions were given for hearing of some
of the special leave petitions along with Civil Appeal No.3703/
2003 and Civil Appeal No. 3922/2007 and argued that in view
of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Gimar Traders v.
G State of Maharashtra (2011) 3 SCC 1 (hereinafter referred to
as 'Girnar Traders (Ill)'), the question arising in these appeals
should be referred to a Constitution Bench. Shri Naphade further
argued that the reservation of the respondents' land cannot be
treated to have lapsed on the expiry of six months from the date
H of receipt of purchase notices because in the meanwhile, the
SHRIRAMPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SHR!RAMPUR v.
679
SATYABHAMABAI BHIMAJI DAWKHER [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
appellants had passed resolutions and sent communications A
to the District Collector to commence the acquisition
proceedings and this· amounted to taking of steps within the
meaning of Section 127 read with Section 126(1){c) of the
1966 Act. Learned senior counsel submitted that the
expression "no steps as aforesaid are commenced" appearing B
in Section 127 must take their colour from Clause (c) of Section
126(1) and, therefore, making of an application by the Planning
Authority or sending of a communication to the District
Magistrate to start the acquisition proceedings must be treated
as sufficient to avert the consequence envisaged under Section C
127 of the 1966 Act. Shri Naphade relied upon the Constitution
Bench judgment in Girnar Traders (Ill) and argued that in view
of the proposition laid down therein that Section 11A of the 1894
Act, which provides that the acquisition proceedings will lapse
if the award is not passed within two years from the date of
publication of the declaration made under Section 6(1) of that D
Act, is not applicable to the scheme of the 1966 Act, the period
of six months specified in Section 127 of that Act cannot be
treated as sacrosanct and there cannot be deemed lapsing of
the reservation merely because the State Government and/or
its delegate fails to initiate proceedings for the acquisition of E
land covered by the Regional plan/Development plan. Other
learned counsel adopted the arguments of Shri Naphade.
14. Learned counsel for the private respondents supported
the impugned orders and argued that the majority view in Gimar F
Traders (II) cannot be ignored on the ground that it is.
inconsistent with the earlier judgment in Dr. Hakimwadi Tenants'
Association (supra) because that judgment had been
considered and explained in the subsequent judgment.
Relevant Provisions
15. Section 2 of the 1966 Act contains definitions of various
terms including 'Development Authority', 'Development plan',
'local authority', and 'Planning Authority'. Section 21(1) imposes
G
a duty on every Planning Authority to carry out a survey, prepare H
680
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 2 S.C.R.
A
an existing land-use map and a draft Development plan for the
area within its jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of
a Regional plan, where there is such a plan and submit the
same to the State Government for sanction. Section 21 (2) lays
down that every Planning Authority constituted after the
B
commencement of the Act shall prepare a draft Development
plan within a maximum period of three years. Section 21(4)
provides that if the Planning Authority fails to perform its duty
in accordance with Section 21(1) or (2), an officer appointed
by the State Government shall do the needful and recover the
c cost thereof from the funds of the Planning Authority. Section
22 enumerates the contents of a Development plan. Clauses
(b) and (c) of that section read as under:
"22. Contents of Development Plan.- A Development
plan shall generally indicate the manner in which the use
D
of land in the area of the Planning Authority shall be
regulated, and also indicate the manner in which the
development of land therein shall be carried out. In
particular, it shall provide so far as may be necessary for
E
F
G
all or any of the following matters, that is to say,-
(b) proposals for designation of land for public purpose,
such as schools, colleges and other educational
institutions, medical and public health institutions, markets,
social welfare and cultural institutions, theatres and places
for public entertainment, or public assembly, museums, art
galleries, religious buildings and government and other
public buildings as may from time to time be approved by
the State Government;
(c) proposals for designation of areas for open spaces,
playgrounds, stadia, zoological gardens, green belts,
nature reserves, sanctuaries and dairies;"
Sections 23 to 31 lay down the procedure to be followed in the
preparation and sanction of Development plans. Section 25
H
prescribes the outer limit of six months, counted from the date
SHRIRAMPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SHRIRAMPUR v.
681
SATYABHAMABAI BHIMAJI DAWKHER [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
of the declaration of intention of a Planning Authority to prepare
A
a Development plan for the purpose of carrying out a survey of
the lands within its jurisdiction and preparation of an existing
land-use map. Section 26 prescribes an outer limit of two years
from the date of publication of notice under Section 23 for
preparation of a draft Development plan and publication of
B
notice in the Official Gazette. In either case, the State
Government can extend the time prescribed by the statute
subject to the condition that the time specified in Section 26
cannot be extended for more than six months in aggregate.
Section 28(4) (un-amended) contained a limitation of three c
months within which the Planning Committee was required to
consider the report of the Planning Authority or the concerned
officer including the objections and suggestions received by it
or him. In terms of Section 30, the Planning Authority is required
to submit the draft Development plan to the State Government
D
within a period of twelve months. Section 31 (un-amended) laid
down an outer limit of one year for sanction or return of the draft
Development plan. P;roviso to Section 31 (1) empowered the
State Government to extend the period for sanction of the draft
Development plan or refusal thereof. Section 31 (5) lays down
E
that if a Development plan contains any proposal for the
designation of any land for a purpose specified in Clauses (b)
and (c) of Section 22 and if such land does not vest in the
Planning Authority, the State Government shall not include that
land in the Development plan, unless it is satisfied that the
Planning Authority will be able to acquire the same by private
F
agreement or compulsory acquisition within a period of 1 O
years from the date on which the Development plan comes into
operation. Section 32 postulates preparation of interim
Development plan and Section 33 provides for plan or plans
showing proposals for development of any area or areas.
G
Section 34 postulates preparation of a Development plan for
additional area. Section 35 contains a fiction and provides that
a Development plan duly sanctioned by the State Government
before the commencement of the 1966 Act shall be deemed
to be a final Development plan. Section 37 contains the
H
682
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 2 S.C.R.
A procedure for modification of the final Development plan.
Section 38 lays down that the Development plan should be
revised at least once in 20 years. If the State Government so
directs, the Development plan can be revised even before the
expiry of 20 years. Chapter IV of the 1966 Act (Sections 43 to
s 58) contains provisions relating to control of development and
use of land included in the Development plans. Chapter V
(Sections 59 to 112) deals with Town Planning Schemes and
Chapter VII (Sections 125 to 129) contains provisions for
compulsory acquisition of land needed for a Regional plan,
c Development plan or Town Planning Scheme.
16. Section 126, which provides for the acquisition of land
required or reserved for any of the public purposes specified
in any plan or scheme prepared under the 1966 Act and
Section 127, which envisages lapsing of reservation in certain
D contingencies read as under:
E
F
"Section 126. Acquisition of land required for public
purposes specified in plans.