Prafulla C. Dave v. Municipal Commissioner
Background
Landowners contended that a public-purpose reservation had lapsed because the land was not acquired within ten years of the original development plan. A revised plan continued the reservation, and they served a purchase notice only after that revised plan had taken effect. Their development claim was rejected by the planning appellate authority and High Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. Under Section 127 of the Maharashtra planning statute as applied here, expiry of ten years did not itself release reserved land: the owner had to serve the required notice and the authority had to fail to take acquisition steps within the statutory period. Where the owner remained inactive until a revised plan took effect, the revised reservation received a fresh ten-year period. These owners' notice came only two years after the revised plan commenced, so it could not invalidate that reservation. The Court distinguished this from the consequences of a timely valid notice followed by statutory inaction.
Lesson Learnt
Reserved land does not automatically become available for development merely because ten years pass. Owners must attend to the statutory notice procedure and its timing, especially before a revised development plan takes effect.