- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Poona Timber Merchants & Saw Mill Owners Association v. State Of Maharashtra And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The appeals arise out of a common judgment of the Bombay High Court disposing three writ petitions concerning land reserved for “Timber Industries” in the revised Development Plan of Pune City (Survey Nos. 577 Hissa 1-3 and 578 Hissa 1-part). The High Court:
- Partly allowed Writ Petition No. 7846 of 2004 (M/s. C.V. Shah & A.V. Bhat) and Writ Petition No. 9644 of 2004 (Tajuddin Mohhammadbhai), declaring that the reservation over the subject land had lapsed under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (“MRTP Act”).
- Dismissed Writ Petition No. 5077 of 2004 (Poona Timber Merchants and Saw Mill Owners Association).
The losing parties approached the Supreme Court. After the conclusion of arguments, the Bench noted that the scope and ambit of Section 127 MRTP Act is already pending before a larger Bench in Civil Appeal No. 3703 of 2003 and Civil Appeal No. 3922 of 2007. Consequently, the present matters were directed to be heard along with those cases, and the file was ordered to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.
Legal Issues Presented
- What is the correct interpretation of Section 127 of the MRTP Act regarding the lapse of land reservations when acquisition steps are not taken within six months of a purchase notice?
- Whether the High Court was correct in declaring that the reservation over the subject land had lapsed under Section 127.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| (2007) 7 SCC 55 (extract from judgment of P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.) | Harmonious and purposive interpretation of Section 127; sufficient compliance if the planning authority applies to the State Government for land acquisition within six months of the purchase notice. | Quoted to illustrate divergent judicial views already pending before a larger Bench, reinforcing the need to tag the present appeals with those matters. |
| Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay v. Dr. Hakimwadi Tenants' Assn., 1988 Supp SCC 55 | It is adequate compliance with Section 127 if the authority makes an application for acquisition; physical initiation of acquisition by Government is not required within six months. | Cited by Balasubramanyan, J. to support a purposive reading of Section 127 that prevents automatic lapse of reservation. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court observed that:
- The pivotal statutory provision in all the appeals is Section 127 of the MRTP Act.
- A three-Judge Bench has already considered this provision in Civil Appeal Nos. 3703 of 2003 and 3922 of 2007 and, due to conflicting opinions among the learned Judges (Balasubramanyan, J. on one hand and Naolekar & Agrawal, JJ. on the other), certain questions have been referred to a larger Bench.
- For judicial consistency and to avoid parallel or conflicting rulings, it is appropriate that the present batch of appeals, which raise the identical statutory question, be heard together with those earlier matters.
Accordingly, the Bench refrained from deciding the merits of the appeals and directed that they be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for necessary orders to tag them with the pending larger-Bench cases.
Holding and Implications
The appeals were not finally decided; instead, they were directed to be listed with Civil Appeal Nos. 3703 of 2003 and 3922 of 2007, and the papers were placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.
Implications: The substantive question—whether and when land reservations lapse under Section 127 MRTP Act—will be resolved by a larger Bench. Until that decision, the rights of the parties in the instant appeals remain undetermined, and no new precedent has been set by this interim order.
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.— Leave granted.
2. In all these cases certain provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (in short “the Act”) call for determination. Basically the scope and ambit of Section 127 of the Act is the pivotal provision. Three writ petitions were disposed of by the common judgment. Writ Petition No. 7846 of 2004 was filed by M/s C.V Shah and A.V Bhat. Writ Petition No. 9644 of 2004 was filed by Tajuddin Mohhammadbhai while Writ Petition No. 5077 of 2004 was filed by Poona Timber Merchants and Saw Mill Owners Association. By the common judgment the High Court partly allowed Writ Petitions Nos. 7846 and 9644 of 2004 while Writ Petition No. 5077 of 2004 was dismissed. The High Court while granting part relief in the writ petitions held as follows:
“(i) Writ Petitions Nos. 7846 of 2004 and 9644 of 2004 are partly allowed.
(ii) The designation of the subject land being Survey No. 577, Hissa No. 1; Survey No. 577, Hissa No. 2; Survey No. 577, Hissa No. 3 and Survey No. 578, Hissa No. 1 (part) in revised Development Plan of Pune City notified on 5-1-1987 for ‘Timber Industries’ is declared to have lapsed under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, 1966.
(iii) Writ Petition No. 5077 of 2004 is dismissed.
No costs.”
3. After hearing all these appeals were concluded, it is noticed that scope and ambit of Section 127 came up for consideration by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 3703 of 2003 and Civil Appeal No. 3922 of 2007 as a three-Judge Bench was hearing the matter. P.K Balasubramanyan, J., as His Lordship then was, inter alia, observed as follows (2007) 7 SCC 555:
“118. When we interpret Section 127 of the Act, it is not possible to forget the impact of Section 126(1) of the Act. Obviously, the provisions have to be read harmoniously. The court can only postulate the question whether the authority under the MRTP Act has done which it possibly could, in terms of the statute. Therefore, while reading Section 127, we have to take note of the fact that the authority under the MRTP Act can only make an application for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act and nothing more. Therefore, when Section 127 of the MRTP Act says that ‘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 shall be deemed to lapse. We have to see what the authority under the MRTP Act has done. The first part of the provision abovequoted is unambiguous and that is a case where the land is actually acquired. Or, in other words, the acquisition is complete. The second limb abovequoted shows that it is possible to avert the lapse of the scheme if steps as aforesaid are commenced for its acquisition.
119. The step that the authority under the MRTP Act can commence, is the step of applying to the State Government to acquire such land under the Land Acquisition Act. After all, the legislature has given the authority a locus poenitentiae for invoking the machinery for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, when a purchase notice is received by it, in all reasonableness, what it can do is to make an application to the State Government to make the acquisition within six months of the receipt of the purchase notice.
120. Is it necessary or proper to whittle down the locus poenitentiae given to ensure that even at the last moment the lapsing of the scheme can be averted by the authority under the MRTP Act or even after ten years it can seek the acquisition of the land on the receipt of the purchase notice? It is in that context that in Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay v. Dr. Hakimwadi Tenants' Assn. 1988 Supp SCC 55 this Court approved the view of the Bombay High Court that it is enough if the application is made by the authority for acquisition of the land.
121. Suppose, immediately on receipt of a purchase notice, the authority under the MRTP Act makes an application to the Government to acquire the land and for administrative reasons or otherwise it takes the Government time to initiate the proceeding and six months expire in between, can it be postulated that the reservation has lapsed? In that case we will be compelling the authority under the MRTP Act to do something that it has no power to do. According to me such an interpretation of the provision would be unreasonable and should be avoided. Here, the application has been made according to the respondents by the Chief Engineer as authorised by the local authority and to say that the letter written by him is unauthorised or is not adequate compliance with Section 127 of the MRTP Act appears to me to be unwarranted especially when we keep in mind the laudable objects of the mrtp Act.
122. The MRTP Act serves a great social purpose and the approach of the court to an interpretation must be to see to it that the social purpose is not defeated as far as possible. Therefore, a purposive interpretation of Section 127 of the Act so as to achieve the object of the MRTP Act is called for.
123. I would, therefore, hold that there has been sufficient compliance with the requirement of Section 127 of the MRTP Act by the authority under the Act by the acquisition initiated against the appellant in the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 11446 of 2005 and the reservation in respect of the land involved therein does not lapse by the operation of Section 127 of the Act. But since on the main question in agreement with my learned Brothers I have referred the matter for decision by a Constitution Bench, I would not pass any final orders in this appeal merely based on my conclusion on the aspect relating to Section 127 of the mrtp Act. The said question also would stand referred to the larger Bench.”
4. By a separate judgment Brother P.P Naolekar, J. for himself and Brother B.N Agrawal, J. inter alia, noted as follows:
“3. … For this and the other reasons assigned by our learned Brother, we are in agreement with him that the question involved requires consideration by a larger Bench and, accordingly, we agree with the reasons recorded by my learned Brother for referring the question to a larger Bench. However, on consideration of the erudite judgment prepared by our esteemed learned Brother Balasubramanyan, J., regretfully we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree to the decision arrived at by him on interpretation of Section 127 of the MRTP Act and also reference of the case to a larger Bench.
4. Section 127 of the MRTP Act is a special provision and would be attracted in the peculiar facts and circumstances mentioned in the section itself. The section provides a procedure for the landowner to get his land dereserved if steps are not taken by the State Government within the stipulated period and the relief which the owner of the land is entitled to is also provided therein. The steps to be taken for acquisition of land as provided under Section 127 of the MRTP Act have to be taken into consideration keeping in mind the time-lag between the period the land is brought under reservation and inaction on the part of the State to acquire it.
5. Section 127 of the MRTP Act is a unique provision providing remedial measure to the owner of the land whose land is under the planning scheme for a long period of time, which would be interpreted in the facts and circumstances of each individual case. It does not have any universal application and, therefore, the applicability thereof would depend on the facts of each case.
6. SLP (C) No. 11446 of 2005 titled S.P Building Corpn. v. State of Maharashtra is required to be decided by this Bench only and, therefore, we propose to decide it as follows:”
5. In the fitness of things we, therefore, are of the view that these cases need to be heard along with CA No. 3703 of 2003 and CA No. 3922 of 2007.
6. The matter may be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for necessary orders.
Alert