No Writ Of Mandamus Can Be Issued To Acquire Land Once Reservation Stood Lapsed By Operation Of Law - Supreme Court

In this case, the development plan for the city of Kolhapur was sanctioned and different portions of the land in question were reserved in the sanctioned development plan for various public purposes. The land in question was not acquired and/or used for the public purposes for which the same was reserved under the sanctioned development plan, the original writ petitioners i.e. the landowners were served a notice under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the "MRTP Act").

By Resolution, the General Body of the Municipal Corporation resolved to acquire the said property, and accordingly, a proposal was submitted by the Municipal Corporation to the State Government for compulsory acquisition of the subject property. The District Collector passed an order directing that the proposal for acquisition be transferred to the Special Land Acquisition Officer Kolhapur for necessary action. On enactment of the Act of 2013, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 came to be repealed. Therefore, the land in question was subjected to the provisions of the Act of 2013. The Special Land Acquisition Officer directed the Corporation to deposit the amount of Rs.77,65,12,000/- towards compensation in order to issue necessary orders as per Section 19 of the Act of 2013.

By the impugned judgment and order, the Bombay High Court had disposed of the writ petition and issued the following directions in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court observed that as there was already a resolution passed by the General Body of the Municipal Corporation to acquire the subject lands by taking recourse to the law of compulsory acquisition, therefore, there was no option for the Municipal Corporation but to acquire the said land by taking recourse to the Act of 2013. The impugned judgment and order were challenged by the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation i.e. the Plaintiff before the Supreme Court.

Senior Advocate, Ms. Aparajita Singh, appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff - Corporation while Senior Advocate, Shri C.U. Singh, represented the Respondents – original landowners before the Apex Court.

The primary issue in this case was -

• Whether a writ of mandamus could be issued by the High Court in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the authority/Municipal Corporation to acquire the land reserved for a particular purpose and to pay the compensation to the original landowners despite the fact that the reservation was deemed to have lapsed in view of the statutory provisions and that the land which was directed to be acquired and for which the compensation was directed to be paid to the original landowners was unsuitable and unusable for the purposes for which it was reserved.

It was contended by the Plaintiff Corporation that once by operation of law, the reservation had lapsed, no writ of Mandamus could have been issued directing acquisition of the land for which it was reserved under the development plan. Thus, once the reservation was deemed to have lapsed, the original landowners could not insist that still their land be acquired and they be paid the compensation. Hence, it was argued that in such a situation, even neither a writ petition would be maintainable at the instance of the landowners nor a writ of mandamus directing the Corporation to still acquire the land and pay the compensation could be issued.

On the other hand, it was contended by the Respondents that on lapsing of the reservation, a notification was required to be issued by an order publishing in the Official Gazette as per Section 127(2) of the MRTP Act, since, in the present case that was not done, the reservation in respect of landowners could not be said to lapse.

The Supreme Court observed that while preparing the Development Plan and putting a particular private land under reservation and/or while designating the private land for a particular public purpose under the Development Plan, a duty was cast upon the Planning Authority to make a survey and come to a specific opinion by taking into consideration all relevant facts that the land which was kept under reservation and which would be acquired on payment of compensation was suitable and/or usable for the purpose for which it is to be reserved. Moreover, an important duty was cast upon the Planning Authority to first satisfy that the land reserved which thereafter had to be acquired on payment of compensation was very much suitable and usable for that public purpose.

The Court asserted that in this case, an area, which was a flood-affected area and through which a rivulet passed, could not be kept under reservation for a particular public purpose and could not be used for public purposes like parking and/or for the widening of the road, etc. Therefore, while preparing the Development Plan and reserving and/or designating a particular land for a particular public purpose, great care and caution had to be exercised by the Planning Authority.

Thus, according to the Court, all the parameters concerning the suitability of the land for the particular public purpose for which the land was to be reserved and acquired for utilization had to be borne in mind as a factor of paramount importance.

The Apex Court referred to the cases of Shrirampur Municipal Council, Shrirampur v. Satyabhamabai Bhimaji Dawkher, Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra, and Chhabildas v. State of Maharashtra, to hold that if the land reserved under the draft Development Plan/Development Plan was not acquired within a period of ten years from the date of final Development Plan and thereafter after the expiry of ten years, the landowners served a purchase notice and thereafter within a period of one year, no steps were taken to acquire the land, the reservation/allocation was deemed to have lapsed and the land stand released from such reservation/allocation.

It was further opined that the declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 could be said to be taking 'steps' as contemplated under Section 127 of the MRTP Act. Moreover, it was held that after the enactment of the Act of 2013, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was now to be read and/or was substituted by declaration under Section 19 of the Act of 2013. Therefore, if within a period of one year from the date of receipt of purchase notice as per Section 127, a declaration under Section 19 of the Act, 2013 was not issued and the land was not acquired, the reservation/allocation under the Development Plan was deemed to have lapsed and the land would be released from such reservation/allocation.

The Court further asserted that a mere Resolution being passed by the General Body of the Corporation to acquire the land and sending a letter to the Collector to acquire the land, without any further steps being taken under the Land Acquisition Act, namely no declaration under section 6 thereof being issued within a period of one year from the receipt of the said purchase notice, would result in the reservation as deemed to lapse. Additionally, the mere passing of a Resolution and/or making a budgetary provision for payment of the compensation in the budget could not be said to be taking steps as contemplated under section 127 of the MRTP Act.

Additionally, the Court observed that once the reservation of land under the Development Plan was deemed to have lapsed by operation of law and it was released from the reservation, no writ of mandamus could be issued by the High Court directing the Corporation to still acquire the land and to issue a declaration under Section 19 of the Act of 2013.

Furthermore, it was opined that once by operation of law, the reservation was deemed to have lapsed, it lapsed for all purposes. Moreover, the Court held that issuance of the notification of lapse of the reservation of land was only a procedural act and non-issuance of such a notification in the Official Gazette with respect to the lapse of the reservation, allocation or designation would not affect the lapse of the reservation under Section 127(1) of the MRTP Act.

Lastly, the Court asserted that at the time when the planning was made and the land in question was put under reservation for public purposes, a duty was cast upon the Planning Officer to consider whether the land, which will have to be acquired and for which the compensation is to be paid is really suitable and/or usable for the public purposes for which it was reserved. Otherwise, every landowner would see to it that though his land was not suitable and/or not very valuable, was put under reservation and the same was acquired by the Corporation and/or the Planning Authority and thereafter once he was paid the compensation, the Corporation and/or the Planning Authority and/or the Appropriate Authority could be compelled to acquire the land which according to the Corporation/Planning Authority was not suitable and/or usable for the purposes for which it was reserved. According to the Court, this would lead to the colorable and fraudulent exercise of power and cause a financial burden on the public exchequer.

Thus, the Supreme Court quashed and set aside the impugned judgment passed by the Bombay High Court which directed the Corporation to issue a declaration under Section 19 of the Act of 2013 and consequently to acquire the land in question and to pay the compensation to the R$espondents as per the provisions of Act of 2013. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.