India is the seventh largest country in the world with around 3.28 million sq. kilometres. It is one of the strengths of the nation but it is also one of those components which faces a lot of legal issues and problems. Most of the time, the acquisition of land falls in the classic dispute of landowner’s rights with the government’s plan of development, and often, this dispute carries on for years. The long judicial process hampers the condition of both, the landowner and the govt.
To put an end to this issue which has been in existence for decades, the Supreme Court of India recently held a ruling following the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act of 1966 (MRTP Act).
Read the news article to learn more about the specifics of the ruling of the Supreme Court of India.
Land Reservation Rules
Recently, the Supreme Court of India held a ruling following the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act of 1966 (MRTP Act). The court clarified that if any state government publishes a development plan for land but doesn’t act upon reserving the land within 10 years of publishing against which a landowner serves a purchase notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, the state would be obliged to either act within a year or the reservation will automatically lapse.
A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that “It is, thus, clear that the scheme of Sections 126 and 127 respectively would leave nobody in doubt, for the reason that if a period of 10 years has elapsed from the date of publication of the plan in question, and no steps for acquiring the land have been taken, then once a purchase notice is served under Section 127, steps to acquire the land must follow within one year from the date of service of such notice, or else the land acquisition proceedings would lapse”.
Facts Of The Case
The Supreme Court of India came across a land acquisition case of Nirmiti Developers through its Partners & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act of 1966.
The appellants (person who files a case) owned land that was reserved for developmental purposes by the state government. More than 10 years passed but the state govt did nothing to acquire the land due to which the appellants faced numerous issues. They served a purchase notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act of 1966.
As soon as the purchase notice was served, the state was supposed to start the land acquisition proceedings and finish within a year but they didn’t. Hence, the appellants filed a case to get their land back from the state govt as no action was taken for more than 11 years.
Referred Precedences
The court referred to two major precedents for ruling in the case of Nirmiti Developers through its Partners & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra.
1. Chhabildas v. State of Maharashtra (2018)
The Bench referred to its decision in Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. (2002) wherein it was held that “A plain meaning of the said provisions, in our considered view, would lead to only one conclusion, namely, that in the event a notice is issued by the owner of the land or other person interested therein asking the authority to acquire the land upon expiry of the period specified therein viz. ten years from the date of issuance of the final development plan and in the event according to or in furtherance thereof no action for acquisition thereof is taken, the designation shall lapse”.
2. Prafulla C. Dave v. Municipal Commissioner (2013)
There was one more precedence that the court mentioned. i.e. of Prafulla C. Dave v. Municipal Commissioner (2013). Here, the court expressed that, “Under Section 127 of the M.R.T.P. Act, reservation, allotment or designation of any land for any public purpose specified in a development plan is deemed to have lapsed and such land is deemed to be released only after notice on the appropriate authority is served calling upon such authority either to acquire the land by agreement or to initiate proceedings for acquisition of the land either under the M.R.T.P. Act or under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the said authority fails to comply with the demand raised thereunder”.
Read More: Cabinet Extends Amnesty Scheme For Government Land Conversion By One Year
What Was The Court’s Ruling?
The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the appellants as their case was by the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act of 1966. The court clearly stated that the state doesn’t have the right to take people’s land and not take any action to fulfil the developmental plans for as much time as they wish.
The court ruled with the precedence of the Prafulla C. Dave v. Municipal Commissioner (2013). The Supreme Court also considered the fact that it has been more than 30 years of no action taken by the state due to which they ruled as per Article 142 of the Constitution to impart fair justice to the appellants.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court of India ruled in favour of the appellants in the case of Nirmiti Developers through its Partners & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra. The court not only ruled within the boundaries of the law but also considered the hardship faced by the appellants for more than 30 years. Cases like these restore people’s faith in the Indian Judicial System and bodies responsible for delivering fair and equal justice.
Stay updated with Jaagruk Bharat to get the latest information on government schemes and more, and reach out to us via our community page if you have any questions or want to share your thoughts.
