The Bombay High Court has declared that the reservation of a plot in Malegaon for a primary school and playground has lapsed under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The Court held that the Malegaon Municipal Corporation’s demand for documents after receiving the landowners’ purchase notice was only an attempt to stop the statutory period from running.
A Division Bench of Justice M. S. Karnik and Justice Sandesh D. Patil allowed the writ petition. The petition had sought a declaration that the reservation on Plot Nos. 24 to 38 of Survey No. 68 at Malegaon Camp, marked as Reservation Site No. 20, had lapsed.
Background
The plot measures about 3,400 square metres. It was reserved for a primary school and playground in the Development Plan for Malegaon, which came into force on October 12, 2009. The petitioners said the land had stayed under reservation for more than 10 years, but the process to acquire it was never started.
On February 13, 2020, the petitioners issued a purchase notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act. It was served on the Corporation the next day. The State, through a Desk Officer, confirmed receipt of the notice by a letter dated February 24, 2020.
On April 5, 2022, after 24 months had passed, the petitioners sought permission to build on the plot. The Municipal Commissioner rejected their plan on July 18, 2022. The petitioner Shrikant Devidas Uplekar has since died, and his legal heirs were brought on record.
Arguments
Advocate Vinit P. Ahuja, instructed by Advocate Prakash Ahuja, appeared for the petitioners. He argued that the Corporation took no action within the 24-month period stipulated in Section 127, so the reservation had lapsed.
Advocate S. S. Patwardhan, along with Advocate A. V. Hardas, appeared for the Corporation. He submitted that the Corporation had written to the petitioners on August 26, 2020, demanding several documents, and that the petitioners did not comply. He contended that Section 127 requires the notice to be accompanied by documents showing title. Since the purchase notice carried no documents, he argued, it was not a valid notice. AGP Reena A. Salunkhe appeared for the State.
Section 127 MRTP Act: Court’s Findings
The Bench found that paragraph 6 of the purchase notice expressly stated that the 7/12 extract was attached as proof of ownership. The record showed that copies of the extract were served with the notice. The Court remarked, “It appears that the respondent No.1- Corporation has raised facade to wriggle out of the provisions of Section 127 of the MRTP Act.”
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Dr. Hakimwadi Tenants’ Association, 1988 (Supp) SCC 55. In that case, the Supreme Court held that “Section 127 of the Act does not contemplate an investigation into title by the officers of the Planning Authority, nor can the officers prevent the running of time if there is a valid notice.”
The Bench noted that the Corporation has access to all land records, including those of the property in question. It held that the letter dated August 26, 2020 “was nothing but an attempt to prevent the running of time and was of little or no consequence to decide the issue of lapsing of reservation.”
The Court found that the notice described the land with sufficient clarity and that the 7/12 extract prima facie showed the petitioners’ title. It concluded, “The Purchase Notice, thus, in all aspects complied with the statutory requirement of Section 127 of the MRTP Act.”
The Court also relied on Chinmay Gurnath Parade v. State of Maharashtra (WP/3890/2021) and Yakub Salebhai Contractor v. State of Maharashtra, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 1292.
The 24-month period ended on February 13, 2022. Counsel for the Corporation had himself stated that no further steps were taken because the petitioners did not comply with the August 2020 letter. On that basis, the Court held, “since the respondent No.1- Corporation has not taken any steps as contemplated in Section 127 of the MRTP Act, the conclusion is inevitable that the reservation in the present case has lapsed.”
Outcome
The High Court declared that the reservation on the plot had lapsed. The petitioners are at liberty to use the land as permitted under the city’s Development Plan. Rule was made absolute, with no order as to costs, and the pending interim application was disposed of.
Case Title: Shrikant Devidas Uplekar (since deceased through legal heirs) v. Malegaon Municipal Corporation & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 4596 of 2024
Bench: Justice M. S. Karnik and Justice Sandesh D. Patil
Date: October 22, 2026
