PRAFULLA C. DAVE & ORS.versusMUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER & ORS.

                    [2014]13 S.C.R. 1397


                PRAFULLA C. DAVE & ORS.                             A
                               v.
           MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER & ORS.
               (Civil Appeal No. 1999 of 2008)
                    DECEMBER 03, 2014                               B
       [RANJAN GOGOi AND R. K. AGRAWAL, JJ.]
      Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 -
ss. 21, 38 and 127(2) - Lapsing of reservation - Notice uls.
127(2) and the period of 10 years prescribed therein, whether       C
would be from the date.of publication of the development
plan first notified u/s. 21 or from the date of revised
development plan u/s. 38 - Land in question kept under
reservation in July 1966 under development plan u/s. 21 -
Continued under reservation by the revised development              D
plan uls. 38 in January 1987 - Notice u/s. 127 by purchasers
of the land in the year 1989- The notice held to be premature,
by th~ appellate authority as well as the High Court, having
been issued before completion of 10 years from the date of
the revised development plan - Held: The Act does not
provide for automatic lapsing of acquisition in expiry of ten       E
years - .The statute permits the continuation of the
reservation even beyond period of ten years unless it is
interdicted by service of notice u/s. 127 by the party interested
in the land and on failure of the authority to so act - If the
person interested fails to take action before the finalization      F
of the revised plan uls. 38, the reservation of the land in the
revised plan will come into play - The notice uls. 127 was
rightly held to be premature as the same was issued only
after two years of the revised plan as against 10 years as          G
prescribed uls. 127.
     Dismissing the appeal, the Court
     HELD: 1. Under Section 127 of the Maharashtra
Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act)
reservation, allotment or designation of any land for any           H
                             1397
1398      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 13 S.C.R.

 A public purpose specified in a development plan is
   deemed to have lapsed and such land is deemed to be
   released only after notice on the appropriate authority
   is served calling upon such authority either to acquire
   the land by agreement or to initiate proceedings for
 B acquisition of the land either under the MRTP Act or
   under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the said
   authority fails to comply with the demand raised
   thereunder. Section 127 of the MRTP Act or any other
   provision of the said Act does not provide for automatic
 C lapsing of the acquisition, reservation or designation of
   the land included in any development plan on the expiry
   of ten years. [Para 19][1410-B-F]
         2. under Section 38 a revised plan is to be prepared
   on the expiry of a period of 20 years from date of coming
 D into force of the approved plan under Section 31 whereas
   Section 127 contemplates a period of 10 years with effect
   from the same date for the consequences provided for
   therein to take effect. The statute, therefore,
   contemplates the continuance of a reservation made for
 E a public purpose in a final development plan beyond a
   period of ten years. Such continuance would get
   interdicted only upon the happening of the events
   contemplated by Section 127 i.e. giving/service of notice
   by the land owner to the authority to acquire the land
 F and the failure of the authority to so act. [Para 19]
   [1411-B-E]
         3. If the land owner or the person interested himself
   remains inactive, the provisions of the Act dealing with
   the preparation of revised plan under Section 38 will have
 G full play. Action on the part of the land owner or the
    person interested as required under Section 127 must
    be anterior in point of time to the preparation of the
    revised plan. Delayed action on the part of the land
    owner, that is, after the revised plan has been finalized
 H
       PRAFULLA C. DAVE & ORS. v. MUNICIPAL                    1399
             COMMISSIONER & ORS.

and published will not invalidate the reservation, A
allotment or designation that may have been made or
continued in the revised plan. [Para 19][1411-E-G]
     4. The facts of the present case makes it plainly
clear that the notice under Section 127 by the appellants
was issued only two years after the final revised plan. B
under Section 38 had come into operation. The rejection
of the appellants' plea before the appellate authority
under Section 47 of the Act as well as the rejection of the
writ petition filed by the appellants before the Bombay
High Court was, therefore, fully justified. [Para 21] C
[1412-E-F]
     Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P)
     Ltd. & Ors. 2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 517: 2003 (2)
     SCC 111 ; Municipal Corporation of Greater
     Bombay v. Dr. Hakimwadi Tenants'Association &             D
     Ors. 1988 SCR 21 : 1988 Supp. SCC 55 - relied
     on.
                CASE LAW REFERENCE
2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 517           relied on     Para 17        E
1988 SCR 21                       relied on     Para 19
   ·CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
1999 of 2008.
     From the Judgment and Order dated 20.09.2007 of the       F
High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 4662
of2006.
     Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv., Gaurav Agrawal, Prasenjit
Keswani, Satyajit Saha, Mrs. V. D. Khanna, Advs. for the
Appellants.           ·                                  G
     Shekhar Naphade, Sr.Adv.,Ashish Wad, Mrs. Jayshree
Wad, Anshuman Srivastava, Ms. J. S. Wad, Kshatrshal Rai
(For M/s. Parekh & Co.),Advs. for the Respondents.

                                                               H
1400         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 13 S.C.R.


 A          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             RANJAN GOGOi, J.
             1. The question arising for determination in the present
       appeal has been succinctly formulated by the High Court in
       the following terms:
 8
             "Whether, the ·plan first prepared and notified under
       Section 21 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning
       Act, 1966 ('MRTP Act') is the final development plan and the
       plan prepared under Section 38 is only a revision of the final
 c     development plan proposed under Section 21 of the MRTP
       Act and as such, the notice contemplated under Section 127(2)
       of the MRTP Act and the period prescribed is from the
       publication of the development plan first notified under Section
       21 and not the revised development plan under Section 38?"
 D           2. To answer the aforesaid question, a brief conspectus
       of the statutory framework under the Maharashtra Regional
       and Town Planning Act, 19Q.6 (hereinafter referred to as the
       'MRTP Act') will be neces~~ry.
          3. The preamble to the Act suggests that the MRTP Act
 E was enacted, inter alia, "....... to make better provisions for
   the preparation of development plans with a view to ensuring
   that town planning schemes are made in a proper manner and
   their executions is made effective ........... " .
        4. Section 2 of the MRTP Act contains the definition
 F clause. A Development Plan is defined by sub-section (9) of
   Section 2 to mean "a plan for the development or re-
   development of the area within the jurisdiction of a Planning
   Authority [and includes revision of a development plan and
   proposals of a special planning authority for development of
 G land within its jurisdiction]".
         5. Chapter 111, inter alia, deals with preparation,
   submission and sanction of development plan. Section 21
   provides that not later than three years after commencement
 H of the Act every planning authority shall carry out a survey,
   prepare an existing land-use map and prepare a draft
       PRAFULLAC. DAVE & ORS. v. MUNICIPAL                      1401
      COMMISSIONER &ORS. [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]

development plan for the area within its jurisdiction. A A
publication in the official gazette or in such other manner as
may be prescribed stating that the draft development plan has
been prepared is also contemplated. The draft development
plan is required to be submitted by the State Government for
sanction.                                                      B
     6. Section 22 provides for the contents of the
development plan and is in the following terms:-
     "Contents of Development Plan:-A Development plan
     shall generally indicate the manner in which the use of C
     land in the area of the Planning Authority shall be
     regulated, ~md also indicate the manner in which the
     development of land therein shall be carried out. In
     particular, it shall provide so far as may be necessary for
     all or any of the following matters, that is to say,- .
                                                                 D
     (a) proposals for allocating the use.of land for purposes,
     such as residential, industrial, commercial, agricultural,
     recreational;
     (b) proposals for designation of land for public purpose,
     such as schools, colleges and other educational E
     institutions, medical and public health institutions,
     markets, social welfare and cultural institutions, theatres
     and places for public entertainment, or public assembly,
     museums, art galleries, religious buildings and
     government and other public buildings as may from time F
     to time be approved by the State Government;
     (c) proposals for designation of areas for open spaces,
     playgrounds, stadia, zoological gardens, green belts,
     nature reserves, sanctuaries and dairies;
     (d) transports and communications, such as roads, high- G
     ways, park ways, railways, water -ways, canals and
     airports, including their extension and development;
     (e) water supply, drainage, sewerage, sewage disposal,
     other public utilities, amenities and services including   H
     electricity and gas;
1402   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2014] 13 S.C.R.


 A     (f) reservation of land for community facilities and
       services;
       (g) proposals for designation of sites for service
       industries, industrial estates and any other development
       on an extensive scale;
 B
       (h) preservation, conservation and development of areas
       of natural scenery and landscape;
       (i) preservation of features, structures or places of
       historical, natural, architectural and scientific interest and
 c     educational value 1[and of heritage buildings and
       heritage precincts];
       U) proposals for flood control and prevention of river
       pollution;
       (k) proposals of the Central Government, a State
 D     Government, .Planning Authority or public utility
       undertaking or any other authority established by law for
       designation of land as subject to acquisition for public
       purpose or as specified in a Development plan, having
       regard to the provisions of section 14 or for development
 E     or for securing use of the land in the manner provided by
       or under this Act;
       (I) the filling up or reclamation of low lying, swampy or
       unhealthy areas, or levelling up of land; -

 F     (m) provisions for permission to be granted for controlling
       and regulating the use and development of land within
       the jurisdiction of a local authority including imposition of
       fees, charges· and premium, at such rate as may be fixed
       for conditions and restrictions in regard to by the State
       Government or the Planning Authority, from time to time,
 G
       for grant of an additional Floor Space Index or for the
       special permissions or for the use of discretionary
       powers under the relevant Development Control
        Regulations, and also for imposition of conditions and
       restrictions in regard to the open space to be maintained
 H
       PRAFULLA C. DAVE & ORS. v. MUNICIPAL                         1403
      COMMISSIONER & ORS. [RANJAN GOGOi, J.] .

    · about buildings, the percentage of building area for a A
      plot, the location, number, size, height, number of storeys
      and character of buildings and density of population
      allowed in a specified area, the use and purposes to
      which buildings or specified areas of land may or may
      not be appropriated, the sub-division of plots the B
      discontinuance of objectionable users of land in any area
      in reasonable periods, parking space and loading and
      unloading space for any building and the sizes of
      projections and advertisement signs and boardings and
      other matters as may be considered necessary for C
      carrying out the objects of this Act."
      7. Section 23 which really ought to have preceded the
earlier Sections i.e. Sections 21 and 22 contemplate that a
planning authority, before carrying out a survey and preparing
an existing land-use map, shall by a Resolution make a              D
declaration of its intention to prepare a development plan. Such
declaration is required to be published in the official gazette
and also in the local newspaper inviting suggestions or
objections from the public within a period of not less than sixty
days from the date of publication in the official gazette. The      E
appointment of a planning officer to carry out a survey and
prepare an existing land-use map is provided for by Section
24 of the MRTP Act. Under Section 25, the planning authority
or the officer appointed by it t.:nder Section 24 is required to
carry out a survey of the lands and prepare an existing land-        F
use map within six months from the date of pl,Jblication of the
intention to prepare a development plan. Section 26 provides
for preparation of the draft development plan within two years
from the date of notice under Section 23 and publication of
the same in the official gazette calling for objections and         G
suggestions to be submitted within thirty days from the date of
publication in the gazette. Such objections are required to be
forwarded to a Planning Committee constituted under the Act
for consideration and report. Modifications or changes in the
draft development plan may be made by the planning authority        H
1404         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 13 S.C.R.


 A after receipt of the report of the Planning Committee which
     modifications are again required to be notified in the official
     gazette for information to the public. Thereafter under Section
     30, the draft development plan alongwith a list of modifications
     or changes proposed in the said draft plan under Section 28(4)
 B is required to be submitted to the State Government within a
     period of six months. Sanction of the State Government is to
     be accorded under Section 31 within six months from the date
     of receipt of the draft plan from the planning authority. It would
     be significant to note that under sub-section (5) of Section 31
 C if a development plan contains any proposal for the designation
     of any land for a purpose specified in Section 22(b)(c) (already
   . extracted) and such land does not vest in the planning authority,
     the State Government shall not include such land jn a
     development plan unless it is satisfied that the planning
 o authority will be able to acquire such land either by private
     agreement or by compulsory acquisition not later than ten years
     from the date on which the development plan comes into
     operation.
           8. Section 37 of the MRTPAct provides for modification
 E of a final development plan of such nature which will not change
   the character of the plan. Such modification has to be preceded
   by notice in the official gazette inviting objections and
   suggestions. Hearing of such objections is contemplated by
   Section 37 ( 1) before submission of the proposal for
 F modification to the State Government for sanction. Section 37
   also contemplates suo moto modification by State Government
   subject to observance of the same procedure. Under sub-
   section (2) the State Government may sanction a modification
   which is again required to be published in the official gazette.
 G           9. Section 38 deals with the revision of a final
       development plan, already in operation. Such revision is
       contemplated on the expiry of 20 years from the date of coming
       into operation of a development plan. As the scope, purport
       and effect of the provisions contained in Section 38 is the bone
 H
       PRAFULLA C. DAVE & ORS. v. MUNICIPAL                   1405
      COMMISSIONER & ORS. [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]

of controversy in the present case, the same may be extracted A
below.
     "38. Revision of Development Plan
     At least once in [twenty years] from the date on which a
     Development plan has come into operation, and where
                                                                 8
     a Development plan is sanctioned in parts, then at least
     once in [twenty years] from the date on which the last
     part has come into operation, a Planning Authority may
     [and shall at any time when so directed by the State
     Government], revise the Development Plan [(either wholly, C .
     or the parts separately)] after carrying out, if necessary,
     a fresh survey and preparing an existing land-use map
     of the area within its jurisdiction, and the provisions of
     sections 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30 and 31 s.hall, so
     far as they can be made applicable, apply in respect of D
     such revision of the Development plan:"
       10. Section 38 clearly sets out the point of time at which
a revision of an approved plan already in operation can be
made. Such revision may involve a fresh survey and preparation
of fresh land-use map. Section 38 further makes it clear that in E
revision of a development plan the provisions of Sections 22
to .31 except Section 29, so far as they can be made
applicable, shall apply.
      11. The other relevant provisions of the MRTP Act which
would require to be noticed are Sections 126-and 127. Under F
Section 126 after publication of a development plan if any land
is required or reserved for any of the public purposes specified
in such plan, the planning authority or any other appropriate
authority may acquire the land, inter alia, by making an
application to the State Government for acquiring such land G
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. There are two other
modes of acquisition, namely, by agreement and by allotment
of transferable development rights. The same, however, would
 not be relevant for the purpose of the present case and,
 therefore, need not be noticed. Acquisition of land under the H
1406       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014) 13 S.C.R.


A Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is to be made by issuing a
  declaration in the official gazette in the manner provided in
  Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Such declaration
  is required to be made within one year from the publication of
  the development plan. However, sub-section (4) provides that
B if such a declaration is not made within a period specified or if
  the other contingencies provided for in the said sub-section
  exist, the State Government may make a fresh-declaration in
  which event the market value of the land will be determined as
  on the date of the fresh declaration under Section 6 of the Land
C Acquisition Act.
          12. Section 127 deals with lapsing of reservations and
    being at the core of the controversy arising in the present case,
    will require to be extracted below-
         "Lapsing of reservations:- If any land reserved, allotted
D        or designated for any purpose specified in any plan under
         this Act is not acquired by agreement within ten years
         from the date on which a final Regional plan, or final
         Development plan comes into force or if proceedings
         for the acquisition of such land under this Act or under
E        the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), are not
         commenced within such period, the owner or any person
         interested in the land may serve notice on the Planning
         Authority, Development Authority or as the case may be,
         Appropriate Authority to that effect; and if within six
F        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, allotment
         or designation shall be deemed to have lapsed, and
         thereupon the land shall be deemed to be released from
G        such reservation, allotment or designation and shall
         become available to the owner for the purpose of
         development as otherwise, permissible in the case of
         adjacent land under the relevant plan."
         13. Section 127 of the MRTP Act is free from any
H   ambiguity. If the land reserved, allotted or designated for any
       PRAFULLA C. DAVE & ORS. v. MUNICIPAL                        1407
      COMMISSIONER & ORS. [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]

purpose specified in any plan under the Act is not acquired by A
agreement within ten years from the date on which the final
regional or development plan had come into force or if
proceedings for the acquisition of such land under the MRTP
Act or under the Land Acquisition Act are not commenced
within the said period of ten years, the owner or any person B
interested in the land may serve notice to the concerned
authority and if within six months from the date of service of
such notice the land is not acquired or no steps are taken for
its acquisition, the reservation, allotment or designation is
deemed to have lapsed and the land is deemed to be released c
from such reservation, allotment or designation and becomes
available to the owner.
       14. In the present case the land belonging to the
appellants measure about 83 Ares and is situated at village
Aundh, District Pune, Maharashtra. The said land was included       D
in a development plan of the city of Pune notified on 8th July,
1966 and shown to be kept under reservation for a public
purpose i.e. garden. The land was not acquired by resorting
to any of the modes under Section 126 at any point of time
prior to the sanction of a revised development plan dated 5th       E
January, 1987 which continued the reservation of the land for
the same purpose i.e. garden. The final revised development
plan dated 5th January, 1987 was preceded by a draft revised
plan which was published in the year 1982. No notice under
Section 127 of the MRTP Act was issued by the owner and             F
any person interested in the land and served on any authority
 under the Act at any point of time prior to the purchase of the
land by the appellants from the original owners in the year
 1989. After such purchase, the appellants filed Writ Petition
 No. 5467 of 1989 on 29th August, 1989 before the Bombay            G
 High Court for deletion and de-reservation of the land.
Thereafter, the appellants served a notice dated 5th October,
 1989 under Section 127 ofthe MRTPAct calling upon the Pune
 Municipal Corporation to acquire the land within a period of
 six months from the date of receipt of the notice. As no action    H
1408       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 13 S.C.R.

 A was taken by the Municipal Corporation, the appellants
   submitted a layout plan to the Corporation on 5th October, 1990
   which was rejected on 29th October,· 1990. Against the
   aforesaid rejection made by the Corporation, the appellants
   filed an appeal under Section 47 of the MRTP Act. In the
 B meantime, the writ petition i.e. W.P No.5467of1989 filed by
   the appellants was disposed of with a direction that the appeal
   filed by the appellants be expeditiously decided. The said
   appeal came to be rejected on 14th July, 2003 on the ground
   that notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act was premature
 c as it was issued before the completion of the period of ten
   years from the date of the revised development plan.
         15. Assailing the said order passed in the appeal, the
   writ petition was filed wherein the issue arising was formulated
   by the High Court in the terms already set out. The answer
 D provided by the High Court in the writ proceeding being adverse
   to the appellants, the instant appeal has been filed.
        16. We have heard Shri Jayant Bhushan, learned senior
   counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri Shekhar
   Naphade, learned senior counsel appearing for the·
 E respondents.
         17. On behalf of the appellants it is contended that the
   period of ten years under Section 126 of the Act has to be
   reckoned from the date of coming into force of the initial final
 F development plan and not the revised development plan made
   under Section 38 of the Act. Any other view, according to the
   learned counsel, would amount to a perpetual deprivation of
   the owner of land which, at the same time is also not being put
   to use for the public purpose specified in the development plan.
 G Section 127 of the Act, it is contended, is a beneficial provision
   in so far as the land owner is concerned calling for a liberal
   interpretation of its effect. Learned counsel has also drawn
   attention to the provisions of Section. 31 (5) of the MRTP Act
   which contemplates that in so far as reservation of land for
 H public purposes specified in sub-section (b) and (c) of Section
   21 is concerned inclusion of such land in the Development
       PRAFULLA C. DAVE & ORS. v. MUNICIPAL                    1409
      COMMISSIONER & ORS. [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]

Plan should not be made unless the authority is reasonably A
confident of acquiring the land within a period of ten years.
Learned counsel has, therefore, submitted thatthe legislative
intent was to give the authority under the Act a maximum of ten
years to acquire the land earmarked for a public purpose or at
least to initiate steps for such acquisition failing which the B
reservation would lapse. Reliance has been placed on a
decision of this Court in Bhavnaqar University vs. Palitana
 Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. & Ors. 1 in support of the contentions made
 by them.
        18. In reply, Shri Naphade has submitted that the scheme C
  of the Act would suggest that a revised plan prepared under
  Section 38 tantamounts to a complete development plan
  contemplated in Sections 21 to 30 of the Act. The legislative
· scheme takes into account that development is a dynamic
  process and cannot be frozen by strict prescriptions of time. D
  Once the final development plan is revised under Section 38
  the period of ten years would necessarily run from the date of
  coming into force of such revised plan. Any other interpretation,
  according to the learned counsel, would render all provisions
  of the Act dealing with the revised plan otiose. Shri Naphade E
  has also argued that in the event a revised plan under Section
· 38 is sanctioned and brought into force the relevant date for
  determination of compensation would .stand transposed to the
  fresh dates of the declaration under Section 6 of the Land
  Acquisition Act which would ensure payment of a fair F
  compensation to the land owner. This is by virtue of Section
   126(4) of the Act and, according to Shri Naphade, is how the
   balance between public interest and the interest of the land
   owner is main.tained under the provisions of the Act. In so far
   as the decision in Bhavnagar University (supra) is G
   concerned, Shri Naphade has submitted that there are certain
   provisions of the MRTP Act which are not embodied in the
   provisions of the Gujarat Act that was considered in
   Bhavnagar University (supra). Specifically it is pointed out
 1
  2003 (2) sec 111                                               H
1410        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2014113 S.C.R. .


 A that the provisions similar to Sections 37, 49 and 50 of the
   MRTP Act which provide alternative escape routes to the land
   owners are absent in the Gujarat Act. It is on the aforesaid
   broad basis the decision in Bhavnagar University (supra)
   has been sought to be distinguished.
 B          19. Under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, reservation,
      allotment or designation of any land for any public purpose
      specified in a development plan is deemed to have lapsed
      and such land is deemed to be released only after notice on
      the appropriate authority is served calling upon such authority
 C    either to acquire the land by agreement or to initiate
      proceedings for acquisition of the land either under the MRTP
     Act or under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the said
      authority fails to comply with the demand raised thereunder.
      Such notice can be issued by the owner or any person
D     interested in the land only if the land is not acquired or
     provisions for acquisition is not initiated within ten years from
     the date on which the final development plan had come into
     force. After service of notice by the land owner or the person
     interested, a mandatory period of six months has to elapse
E    within which time the authority can still initiate the necessary
     action. Section 127 of the MRTP Act or any other provision of
     the said Act does not provide for automatic lapsing of the
     acquisition, reservation or designation of the land included in
     any development plan on the expiry of ten years. On the contrary
F    upon expiry of the said period of ten years, the land owner or
     the person interested is mandated by the statute to take certain
     positive steps i.e. to issue/serve a notice and there must occur
     a corresponding failure on the part of the authority to take
     requisite steps as demanded therein in order to bring into effect
G    the consequences contemplated by Section 127. What would
     happen in a situation where the land owner or the person
     interested remains silent and in the meantime a revised plan
     under Section 38 comes into effect is not very difficult to fathom.
     Obviously, the period of ten years under Section 127 has to
H    get a fresh lease of life of another ten years. To deny such a
          PRAFULLA C. DAVE & ORS. v. MUNICIPAL                 1411
         COMMISSIONER & ORS. [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]

result would amount to putting a halt on the operation of Section A •
38 and rendering the entire of the provisions with regard to
preparation and publication of the revised plan otiose and
nugatory. To hold that the inactivity on the part of the authority
i.e. failure to acquire the land for ten years would automatically
have the effect of the reservation etc. lapsing would be contrary B
to the clearly evident legislative intent. In this regard it cannot
be overlooked that under Section 38 a revised plan is to be
prepared on the expiry of a period of 20 years from date of
coming into force of the approved plan under Section 31
whereas Section 127 contemplates a period of 10 years with C
effect from the same date for the consequences provided for
therein to take effect. The statute, therefore, contemplates the
continuance of a reservation made for a public purpose in a
final development plan beyond a period of ten years. Such
 continuance would get interdicted only upon the happening of o
 the events contemplated by Section 127 i.e. giving/service of
 notice by the land owner to the authority to acquire the land
 and the failure of the authority to so act. It is, therefore, clear
 that the lapsing of the reservation, allotment or designation
 under Section 127 can happen only on the happening of the. E
 contingencies mentioned in the said section. If the land owner
 or the person interested himself remains inactive, the
 provisions of the Act dealing with the preparation of revised
 plan under Section 38 will have full play. Action on the part of
 the land owner or the person interested as required under F
 Section 127 must be anterior in point of time to the preparation
 of the revised plan. Delayed action on the part of the land owner,
 that is, after the revised plan has been finalized and published
 will not invalidate the reservation, allotment or designation that
 may have been made or continued in the revised plan. This, G
 according to us, would be the correct position in law which
 has, in fact, been clarified in Municipal Corporation of
  Greater Bombay_ vs. Dr. Hakimwadi Tenants' Association
  & Ors. 2 in the following terms:
2
    1988 supp. sec 55                                           H
1412          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 13 S.C.R.


 A           "If there is no such notice by the owner or any
             person, there is no question of the reservation,
             allotment or designation of the land under a
             development plan of having lapsed. It a fortiori
             follows that in the absence of a valid notice under
 B           Section 127, there is no question of the land
             becoming available to the owner for the purpose of
             development or otherwise."
            20. In fact the views expressed in Bhavnagar University
       (supra) in para 34 is to the same effect:
 c           "The relevant provisions of the Act are absolutely clear,
             unambiguous and implicit. A plain meaning of the said
             provisions, in our considered view, would lead to only
             one conclusion, namely, that in the event a notice is issued
             by the owner of the land or other person interested therein
 D           asking the authority to acquire the land upon expiry of
             the period specified therein viz. ten years from the date
             of issuance of final development plan and in the event
             pursuant to or in furtherance thereof no action for
             acquisition thereof is taken, the designation shall lapse."
 E
          21. The facts of the present case makes it plainly clear
   that the notice under Section 127 by the appellants was issued
   only two years after the final revised plan under Section 38
   had come into operation. The rejection of the appellants' plea
 F before the appellate authority under Section 47 of the Act as
   well as the rejection of the writ petition filed by the appellants
   before the Bombay High Court was, therefore, fully justified.
   Consequently, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned
   order dated 20th September, 2007 passed by the High Court
 G of Bombay. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, in
   the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as
   to costs.

       Kalpana K. Tripathy                              Appeal dismissed.