MRTP Act | Land Deemed To Be Released If No Acquisition Steps Taken Within 24 Months of Purchase Notice: Bombay High Court

The authority sought to oppose the petition on the ground that the purchase notice was defective and not accompanied by title documents. However, rejecting the contention, the Court held that once the statutory period expires without acquisition steps as contemplated under Sections 126 and 127, the reservation lapses by operation of law. Thereafter, technical objections regarding alleged defects in the purchase notice cannot defeat the consequence of statutory inaction, the court said.

Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Abha J. Mantri observed, “In our view, after the expiry of the stipulated period of twenty-four months under Section 127 (1) upon service of a purchase notice, if the land is not acquired, or no steps as contemplated under the said Section are commenced for its acquisition, thereupon, the land is deemed to be released from such reservation, allotment or designation; in such circumstances, the concerned Authority cannot raise a defence that the purchase notice was defective, as it was not accompanied by the documents showing title or interest in the said land”.

“The planning authority, Respondent No. 3, has only raised the grievance that a purchase notice was defective in the absence of documents demonstrating title or interest in the land or the notice did not contain a detailed description of the property, nor did it produce the measurement sheet of the land in question to indicate the extent of the land affected by the DP reservation. According to us, the submission of documents showing title or interest in the land, along with the Purchase Notice to the concerned Authority as per section 127(1), is intended to facilitate clear transfer of title from the owner or the person interested in the land upon payment of the consideration to the claimant within the stipulated period of 24 months”, the bench had noted.

Advocate Ashutosh Kulkarni appeared for the petitioner and O.A. Chandurkar, Addl. GP appeared for the respondent.

In the present matter, the Court was dealing with a petition concerning land at Lonavala reserved since 1978 for “housing for dishoused” under the Development Plan. Despite the reservation continuing in revised plans of 2005–06, the planning authority did not acquire the land for decades.

After expiry of the statutory period, the landowners issued a purchase notice on 02-10-1998, and thereafter, issued a second purchase notice on 02-08-2021. Even after 24 months, no declaration or concrete steps towards acquisition were initiated.

Relying on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 7 SCC 555 and Nirmiti Developers v. State of Maharashtra 2025 SCC OnLine SC 438, the Court reiterated that landowners cannot be deprived of the use of their land indefinitely and that the timelines prescribed under Section 127 are mandatory.

“…the concerned Authority cannot raise a defence of a defective purchase notice for want of a document showing title or interest in the said land, when it has failed to take steps to acquire the land within the stipulated period as contemplated by the provisions of the MRTP Act. Such documents are not required for the release of the property from reservation, allotment, or designation, when the land is not acquired, or no steps are commenced for its acquisition, reservation, or allotment, as provided in the MRTP Act, on account of the lapsing of the reservation”, the bench further noted.

The Court accordingly declared the reservation lapsed and directed the State to issue a notification under Section 127(2) within the prescribed time.

Cause Title: Yakub Salebhai Contractor (Deceased) & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:8128-DB]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Ashutosh Kulkarni, Irfan Unwala, Shaheen S. Kapadia, Advocates.

Respondent: O.A. Chandurkar, Addl. GP, S.P. Kamble, AGP, Shakuntala Wadekar, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment