GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING.CO.LTD. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 477, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 477 
GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING.CO.LTD. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 
(CIVIL APPEAL N0.1086 OF 2015) 
JANUARY 21, 2015 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.) 
Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 - s. 127 
B 
- Lapsing of reservation - Appellant's land reserved in the 
Development Plan in the year 1991 for acquisition by the C 
Ministry of Railways for laying additional railway tracks -
Expiry of the period of 10 years specified uls. 127 - Failure 
of respondent no .. 1-State Government to take steps for 
acquisition of thA said land -
Issuance of notice by the 
appellant to the Ministry to acquire the land if needed, else o 
issue clarification to that effect - Also lapse of the period of 6 
months as prescribed u!s. 127 - However, land not de-
reserved - Notification issued by State Governm·ent proposing 
the modification in the Development Plan deleting the 
aforesaid reservation of land and adding reservation for E 
Development Plan Road -
Writ petition by the appellant, 
challenging the Notification - Dismissal of - On appeal, held: 
Reservation of the land in favour of the Railway was deemed 
to be released under the said provision of the MRTP Act -
State Government stated that there was no proposal for F 
acquisition of the land in the Railways in the near future - Land 
reserved for the purpose uls. 127 is lapsed and the appellant 
is entitled for developing the land as it likes -
State 
Government is not empowered to delete the
reservation of the 
land from Railway use and to modify the same for 
Development Plan Road in the Development Plan after expiry G 
of 10 years and 6 months notice period was over since the 
appellant acquired the valuable statutory right upon the land 
and the reservation of the same for the proposed formation 
of Railway track lapsed long back - Thus, the Notification is 
477 
H
478 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 
A bad in law and is quashed - Order passed by the High Court 
is set aside. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The reservation of the land in favour of the 
B Railway was deemed to be released under the said 
provision of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning 
Act. Thus, the land reserved for the purpose under 
Section 127 of the MRTP Act, is lapsed and the appellant 
is entitled for developing the land as it likes. [Para 16] 
C [485-F; 486-B] 
1.2 The provisions of Sections 127 and 37(1) of the 
MRTP Act make it clear that the State Government is not 
empowered to delete the reservation of the land involved 
0 
in this case from Railway use and to modify the same for 
Development Plan Road in the Development Plan after 
expiry of 10 years and 6 months notice period was over 
as the appellant has acquired the valuable statutory right 
upon the land and the reservation of the same for the 
E proposed formation of Railway track was lapsed long 
back. Further the respondent No. 2-Ministry of Railways 
vide its letter dated 1.11.2004 has stated that there is no 
proposal for acquisition of land for the purpose of which 
it was reserved. [Para 16] [487-A-C] 
F 
1.3 The High Court did not examine the impugned 
notification from the view point of Section 127 of the 
MRTP Act and interpretation of the said provision made 
in the case of *Girnar Traders case, therefore, giving 
liberty to the appellant by the High Court to file
objections 
G to the proposed notification is futile exercise on the part 
of the appellant for the reason that once the purpose of 
the land was reserved has not been utilized for that 
purpose and a valid statutory right is acquired by the land 
owner/interested person after expiry of 10 years from the 
H date of reservation made in the Development Plan and 6
GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING.CO.LTD. v. 
479 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
months notice period is also expired, the State 
A 
Government has not commenced the proceedings to 
acquire the land by following the procedure as provided 
under Sections 4 and 6 of the repealed Land Acquisition 
Act, 1894. Therefore, the land which was reserved for the 
above purpose is lapsed and it enures to the benefit of 
B 
the appellant. Therefore, it is not open for the State 
Government to issue the impugned notification 
proposing to modify the Development Plan from deleting 
for the purpose of Railways and adding to the 
Development Plan for the formation of Development Plan c 
Road after lapse of 10 years and expiry of 6 months 
notice served upon the State Government. [Para 16] [489-
C-F] 
1.4 The order passed by the High Court is set aside. 
The impugned notification dated 5.8.2008 issued by the 
D 
State Government are vitiated in law and is also quashed 
as the period of 10 years from the date of reservation -in 
the Development Plan and 6 months notice served by the 
appellant on the respondent No. 1 is also over, the 
reservation of the land is lapsed. [Paras 17, 18] [489-G; 
E 
490-A-B] 
*Gimar Traders (3) v. State of Maharashtra 2011 (3) 
SCR 1: (2011) 3 sec 1 - followed. 
F 
Prakash R. Gupta v: Lonavala Municipal Council and 
Ors. 2008 (16) SCR 1067: (2009) 1 SCC 514; Shrirampur 
Municipal Council, Shrirampur v. Satyabhamabai Bhimaji 
Dawkher & Ors. 2013 (2) SCR 664: (2013) 5 SCC 627;
Gimar 
Traders (2) v. State of Maharashtra 2007 (9) SCR 383: (2007) 
7 SCC 555; Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay v. 
G 
Hakimwadi Tenants' Asson. 1988 SCR 21: (1988) Supp SCC 
55 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
2008 (16) SCR 1067 
Referred to 
Para 13 
H
A 
B 
480 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 
2013 (2) SCR 664 
2007 (9) SCR 383 
1988 SCR 21 
2011 (3) SCR 1 
Referred to 
Referred to 
Referred to 
Followed 
Para 16 
Para 16 
Para 16 
Para 16 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
1086 of 2015. 
From The Judgment and Order dated 12.12.2011 of the 
c Divisional Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in 
Writ Petition No. 2274 of 2011. 
Shyam Divan, Siddharth Bhatnagar, S. Mohan, Rahul A., 
T. Mahipal for the Appellants. 
D 
R. P. Bhatt, Varun Mohan, Aniruddha P. Mayee, S. 
E 
Sukumaran, Anand Sukumar, Bhupesh Kumar Pathak, Meera 
Mathur for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by. 
V.GOPALA GOWDA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. The appellant whose land bearing CTS Nos. 31 (pt), 7 
(pt), 70 to 78, 80(pt) and 81, measuring 2188 sq. mtrs. at 
Vikhroli were reserved in the Development Plan in the year 1991 
F 
for acquisition by the Ministry of Railways for laying additional 
railway tracks between "Thane and Kurla", has questioned the 
correctness of the notification dated 5.8.2008 issued by the 
Urban Development Department of the respondent No. 1-State 
Government under Section 37(1) of the Maharashtra Regional 
G Town Planning Act (for short "the MRTP Act") proposing the 
modification in the Development Plan deleting the reservation 
of land in question from Railway reservation and adding 
reservation for Development Plan Road, before the High Court 
of Bombay questioning the power
of the State Government 
H regarding the proposed modification in the Development Plan
GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING.CO.LTD. v. 
481 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.] 
after the period of 10 years specified under Section 127 of the 
A 
MRTP Act, was expired and the State Government has failed 
to take steps for acquisition of the land involved in these 
proceedings reserved for the purpose of laying additional 
railway tracks between "Thane and Kurla", which was not 
interfered with by the High Court by recording its reasons in the 
B 
impugned order dated 12.12.2011, passed in the Writ Petition 
No. 2274 of 2011, is under challenge in these proceedings, 
urging various legal contentions. 
3. The brief facts of the case are as under:-
In the year 1991, appellant's land in question were 
reserved under the Sanctioned Development Plan of Greater 
Mumbai for acquisition of respondent No.2 herein - Union of 
India, Ministry of Railways for laying down additional Railway 
tracks between "Thane and Kurla". -
No steps were taken by the concerned authorities despite 
passing of 10 years period as contemplated under Section 127 
c 
D 
of the MRTP Act to acquire the reserved land of the appellant. 
The appellant has issued the purchase notice under the said 
E 
Section on 04.09.2002 to the respondent No.2 - Ministry of 
Railways stating that if, the Ministry of Railways is in need of 
the land in question, the same may be acquired by them, and 
if the same is not required, a clarification to that effect may be 
issued. 
4. After issuance of the said notice, the
period of 6 months 
as prescribed under Section 127 of the MRTP Ad, was expired 
on 3.3.2003, thus, the reservation of the land in question was 
deemed to be released. 
5. Having got no reply from respondent No. 2, the appellant 
again wrote a letter dated 2.10.2004 to respondent No.1 for 
de-reservation of the land if the same is not required by them. 
6. On 1.11.2004, the respondent No. 2 - Ministry of 
F 
G 
H
482 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 1 S.C.R. 
A Railways informed the Urban Development Department of State 
that there was no proposal for acquisition of reserved land for 
railway development works in the Railways in the near future. 
7. The appellant, on 5.1.2005, wrote to the Urban 
8 
Development Department of the State Government requesting 
for suitable steps in view of clarification letter dated 1.11.2004 
issued by respondent No. 2 and requested it for expediting the 
process of deleting the reservation of the land in question. 
8. The Urban Development Department of the State 
C Government has issued the notification on 24.5.2006 under 
Section 37(1) of the MRTP Act, proposing the modification to 
the Development Plan by deleting "Railway reservation" and 
adding "Reservation for DP Road". The land which was 
reserved earlier in the Development Plan for railway line, the 
D period of 10 years and 6 months after issuing notice was 
lapsed, now proposed to be reserved for Development Plan 
Road. The same was followed by another notification issued 
by the State Government under Section 37(1) of the MRTP Act 
dated 5.8.2008 for modification of the land deleting from the 
E Railway reservation and reserving the same for Development 
Plan Road. 
9. Being aggrieved by the said notification dated 5.8.2008 
proposing the modification of reservation of the land in question 
from the Railway line to Development Plan Road, the appellant 
F approached the High Court by filing
Writ Petition No. 2274 of 
2011 challenging the correctness of the said notification by 
placing strong reliance upon Section 127 of the MRTP Act, 
contending that the proposed modification by the Urban 
Development Department is impermissible in law as the State 
G Government has no power to do so. 
10. The High Court vide its order dated 12.12.2011 
dismissed the writ petition by holding that the action of the State 
Government is only proposed modification and therefore, the 
H writ petition cannot be entertained at this stage. However, the
GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING.CO.LTD. v. 
483 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.] 
High Court has given liberty to the appellant to raise objections A 
before the Urban Development Department of the State 
Government regarding the proposed modification. Further, it is 
observed by the High Court in the impugned order that the 
impugned notification was issued in the month of August, 2008, 
whereas the appellant has filed the petition in the month of B 
August, 2009. In the absence of explanation by the appellant 
for filing a petition about one year after the issuance of 
impugned notification, therefore, the writ petition was also 
rejected on this ground. Hence, the civil appeal is filed by the 
appellant urging various grounds. 
c 
11. Mr. Shyam Divan, the learned senior counsel 
appearing on behalf of the appellant placed strong reliance 
upon the provision of Section 127 of the MRTP Act, in support 
of his legal contention that the land of the appellant involved in 
this case was reserved for the Development Plan by the State D 
Government for acquisition by the Ministry of Railways for laying 
additional Railway tracks between 'T~ane and Kurla", which 
period of 10 years was expired long back and therefore, the 
proposed action to de-reserve and modify the same for the 
abovesaid purpose is not permissible in law. 
E 
12. It was further contended by the learned senior counsel 
that in view of the law laid down in Prakash R. Gupta v. 
Lonavala Municipal Council
and Ors1. the land shQuld• have 
been acquired within 10 years from the date of sanctioned 
F 
development plan. No proceeding for acquisition of the 
reserved land was commenced by the State Government and 
Railway department within the said period under Section 127 
of the MRTP Act. The land involved in these proceedings 
having not been acquired by the respondents within stipulated G 
time of 10 years, the reservation of the land for the purpose of 
railway under the provision of Section 127 of the MRTP Act has 
lapsed long back and hence the same stands released from 
reservation in favour of the appellant. 
1. 
(2009) 1 sec 514. 
H
484 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
13. The learned senior counsel also contended that the 
High Court should have seen that once the right of the appellant 
under Section 127 of tlile MRTP Act, is accrued in favour of the 
appellant, any propos~d modification of the plan in exercise of 
power by the State Government under Section 37 of the MRTP 
B Act, should not be allowed to render the right of the appellant 
under Section 127 of the MRTP Act as otiose. 
14. On the contrary, Mr. R.P. Bhatt, the learned. senior 
counsel oR· behalf of the respondents sought to justify the 
impugned notification contending that the Stat Government is 
C empowered to modify the Development Plan by deleting the 
earlier purpose for which the land was reserved, and can be 
modified for Development Plan Road. The said action is only 
proposed one and therefore, the appellant cannot have any 
grievance at this stage and can raise objections to the 
D impugned notification before the State Government, the same 
will be examined it and take appropriate decision in the matter. 
Therefore, he submits that the impugned order is not vitiated 
either on account of erroneous reasoning or error in law and 
the same need not be interfered with by this Court in exercise 
E of its appellate jurisdiction in this appeal. 
15. Having heard the learned senior counsel on behalf of 
both the parties and with reference to the abovesaid rival factual 
and legal contentions, we have carefully examined the
same 
F keeping in view the undisputed facts involved in this case. It is 
an undisputed fact that the respondent No. 1 has reserved the 
land in question for the Development Plan under the provisions 
of Section 127 of the MRTP Act for the acquisition of the land 
in favour of Ministry of Railways for laying additional railway 
G track between "Thane and Kurla". It would be apposite to extract 
Section 127 of the MRTP Act for better appreciation of the claim 
of the parties, which deals with lapsing of reservation:-
"127. Lapsing of reservations-If any land reserved, 
allotted or designated for any purpose specified in any plan 
H 
under this Act is not acquired by agreement within ten
GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING.CO.LTD. v. 
485 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.] 
years from the date on which a final Regional plan, or final 
A 
D~velopment plan comes into force or if proceedings for 
the acquisition of such land under this Act or under the Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894, are not commenced within such 
period, the owner or any person interested in the land may 
serve notice on the Planning Authority, Development 
B 
Authority or as the case may be, Appropr~te Authority to 
that effect; and if within six months from,.tt1e 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 c 
have lapsed, and thereupon the land shall be deemed to 
be released from such reservation, allotment or 
designation and shall become available to the owner for 
the purpose of development as otherwise, permissible in 
th~ case of adjacent land under the relevant plan." 
D 
16. It is also an undisputed fact that after 10 years, notice 
dated 4.9.2002 served by the appellant under Section 127 of 
the MRTP Act upon the respondent No.1 stating that if, the 
reserved land was needed for the notified purpose, Railway 
department may acquire the same by adopting acquisition 
E 
proceedings, but if the same is not acquired, the clarification 
to that effect be issued. Thereafter, on 3.3.2003 the period of 
6 months as prescribed under the provision of
Section 127 of 
the MRTP Act, after issuance of the above notice by the 
appellant and served on the respondent No.1, was also lapsed 
F 
long back. Therefore, the reservation of the land in favour of the 
Railway was deemed to be released under the above said 
provision of the MRTP Act. The respondent No. 2-Ministry of 
Railways informed the Urban Development Department of the 
State Government on 1.11.2004 stating that there was no 
G 
proposal for acquisition of the land in the Railways in the near 
future, is evident from the undisputed fact of the correspondence 
made between the Ministry of Railways and the Urban 
Development Department of the State Government, which 
would clearly go to show that the land reserved even after 10 
H
486 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 
A years and on expiry of service of notice of 6 months there was 
no intention on the part of the State Government to acquire the 
reserved land for the purpose reserved in favour of the Railways 
departmenJ to form the Railway tracks between "Thane and 
Kurla". In that view of the matter, the land reserved for the 
B purpose under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, is lapsed and the 
appellant is entitled for developing the land as it likes. The State 
Government instead of clarifying to the notice issued by the 
appellant, has proceeded further to initiate proceedings under 
Section 37 of the MRTP Act, proposing the modification in the 
c Development Plan by deleting Railway reservation and adding 
reservation for Development Plan Road. Section 37(1) of the 
MRTP Act, which deals with modification of Final Development 
Plan reads thus:-
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
"37.Modification of final Development Plan - (1) Where 
a modification of any part of or any proposal made in, a 
final Development Plan is of such a nature that it will not 
change the character of such Development Plan, the 
Planning Authority may, or when so directed by the State 
Government shall, within sixty days from the date of such 
direction, publish a notice in the Official Gazette .and in such 
other manner as may be determined by it inviting 
objections and suggestions from any person with respect 
to the proposed modification not later than one month from 
the date of such
notice; and shall also serve notice on all 
persons affected by the proposed modification and after 
giving a hearing to any such persons, submit the proposed 
modification (with amendments, if any), to the State 
Government for sanction. 
1A) If the Planning Authority fails to issue the notice as 
directed by the State Government, the State Government, 
shall issue the notice and thereupon, the provisions of sub-
section (1) shall apply as they apply in relation to a notice 
to be published by a Planning Authority."
GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING.CO.LTD. v. 
487 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.] 
By a careful reading of the provisions of Sections 127 and 
A 
37(1) of the MRTP Act, which are extracted as above 
abundantly make it clear that the State Government is not 
empowered to delete the reservation of the land involved in this 
case from Railway use and to modify the same for Development 
Plan Road in the Development Plan after expiry of 10 years and 
B 
6 months notice period was over as the appellant has acquired 
the valuable statutory right upon the land and the reservation 
of the same for the proposed formation of Railway track was 
lapsed long back. Further the respondent No. 2 vide its letter 
dated 1.11.2004 has stated that there is no proposal for c 
acquisition of land for the purpose of which it was reserved. 
Section 127'0f the MRTP Act, which fell for consideration 
before the three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of 
Shrirampur Municipal Council, Shrirampur v. Satyabhamabai 
Bhimaji Dawkher & Ors2. wherein the contention of the 
D 
appellant that the majority judgment in the case of Gimar 
Traders (2) v. State of Maharashtra3 need to be considered 
by larger Bench as the same is contrary to Section 127 and 
Municipal Corpn. Of Greater Bortfbay v. Hakimwadi Tenants' 
Asson4. case, was rejected. The Court opined that the same 
E 
is not contrary to Section 127 of the MRTP Act and further held 
that there is no conflict between the judgments of the
two-Judge 
Bench in Hakimwadi Tenants' Asson. (supra) and the majority 
judgment in Gimar Traders (2) (supra) case. Further, the three 
Judge Bench judgment in Shrirampur Municipal Council, 
F 
Shrirampur (supra) at paras 45 and 46 supported the 
observation of Constitution Bench in Gimar Traders (3) v. State 
of Maharashtra 5 case relating to Section 127 of the MRTP Act, 
which read thus:-
"45. In our view, the observations contained in para 133 
2. 
(2013) 5 sec a21. 
3. 
(2001) 1 sec 555. 
4. 
(1988) supp sec 55. 
5. 
(2011 > 3 sec 1. 
G 
H
A 
B 
488 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 
of Gimar Traders (3) unequivocally support the majority 
judgment in Gimar Traders (2). 
46. As a sequel to the above discussion, we hold that the 
majority judgment in Gimar Traders (2) lays down correct 
,law 'and does not require reconsideration by a larger 
Bench ... " 
From the above, it is clear that the majority view in Gimar 
·,,Traders (2) (supra) is held to be good law. Therefore, the case 
of Gimar Traders (2) (supra) is binding precedent under Article 
C 141 of the Constitution of India upon the respondent No.1. The 
relevant paragraph 133 from Gimar Traders (3) is extracted 
hereunder:-
D 
E 
F 
G 
"133. However, in terms of Section 127 of the MRTP Act, 
if any land reserved, allotted or designated for any purpose 
specified is not acquired by agreement within 10 years 
from the date on which final regional plan or final 
development plan comes into force or if a declaration 
-under sub-section (2) or (4) of Section 126 of the MRTP 
Act is not published in the Official Gazette within such 
period, the owner or any person interested in the land may 
serve notice upon such authority to that effect and if within 
12 months from the date of 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 the land would 
become available to the owner for the purposes of 
development. The
defaults, their consequences and even 
exceptions thereto have been specifically stated in the 
State Act. For a period of 11 years, the land would remain 
under reservation or designation, as the case may be, in 
terms of Section 127 of the MRTP Act (10 years+ notice 
period)." 
In view of the above said statement of law declared by this 
H Court in the cases referred to supra, after adverting to the
GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING.CO.LTD. v. 
489 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.] 
judgment of majority view in Gimar Traders (2) case (supra) is 
A 
accepted in Shrirampur Municipal Council, Shrirampur 
(supra), wherein it is held that the Gimar Traders (2)(supra) 
case is not conflicting with the Hakimwadi Tenants' Asson. case 
(supra), the statement of law laid down in the above referred 
cases are aptly applicable to the fact situation. Therefore, we 
have to hold that the impugned notification is bad in law and 
liable to quashed. The High Court has not examined the 
impugned notification from the view point of Section 127 of the 
MRTP Act and interpretation of the above said provision made 
B 
. in the case of Gimar Traders (2) (supra), therefore, giving liberty c 
to the appellant by the High Court to file objections to the 
proposed notification is futile exercise on the part of the 
appellant for the reason that the State Government, once the 
purpose the land was reserved has not been utilized for that 
purpose and a valid statutory right is acquired by the land 
D 
owner/interested person after expiry of 10 years from the date 
of reservation made in the Development Plan and 6 months 
notice period is also expired, the State Government has not 
commenced the proceedings to acquire the land by following 
the procedure as provided under Sections 4 and 6 of the 
repealed Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Therefore, the land which 
was reserved for the above purpose
is lapsed and it enures to 
the benefit of the appellant herein. Therefore, it is not open for 
the State Government to issue the impugned notification 
proposing to modify the Development Plan from deleting for the 
purpose of Railways and adding to the Development Plan for 
the formation of Development Plan Road after lapse of 10 years 
and expiry of 6 months notice served upon the State 
Government. 
E 
F 
17. In view of above, the order passed by the High Court 
G 
as well as the impugned notification issued by the State 
Government are vitiated in law and liable to be set aside and 
quashed and we order accordingly. 
18. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set 
H

490 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 1 S.C.R. 
A aside and consequently Rule issued. The impugned notification 
dated 5.8.2008 is also quashed as the period of 10 years from 
the date of reservation in the Development Plan and 6 months 
notice served by the appellant on the respondent No. 1 is also 
over, the reservation of the land is lapsed. No costs. 
B 
Nidhi Jain 
Appeal allowed•