ASSOCIATES THROUGH ITS PARTNER versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
[2019] 11 S.C.R. 282, Supreme Court of India, 2019
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
282
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
BALAJI ASSOCIATES THROUGH ITS PARTNER
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
(Civil  Appeal No.6661 of 2019)
AUGUST 27, 2019
[N. V. RAMANA, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
 AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966– s.127–
Appellant, a partnership firm and its partners are the joint owners
of the disputed land situated in the municipal limits of Nagar
Parishad of the city of Morshi – As per the final development plan
for the city of Morshi, the appellant’s land was reserved for shopping
centre and garden – Appellant served first notice, u/s.127 on
13.07.15 asking the municipality to either acquire the disputed land
or permit them to develop the same– Appellant again on 31.08.15
sent the second notice – Date of receipt of the second notice heavily
contested – Respondent no.3 submitted proposal for acquisition of
the disputed land before respondent no.4 (Collector), who informed
that the proposal was not in order and the same needs to be
resubmitted – Fresh proposal submitted – However, nothing
proceeded further and acquisition has not taken place till this point
of time – Appellant filed writ petition for declaration that the
reservation of their land has lapsed u/s.127– Dismissed – Held:
Statutory provision is clear and categorical – s.127(1) mandates
that for an owner whose land is reserved, allotted or designated, in
terms of final regional plan or developmental plan, needs to serve
a notice to
inform the municipality and seek its response concerning
its interest in acquiring the land, if he wants his property to be de-
reserved – Owners could de-reserve a plot of land by serving a
notice, after the lapse of 10 years from the date of such reservation
i.e.10 years from 01.09.05 herein – Once such notice is served, the
municipality has 24 months to acquire or take steps for acquisition
of land – If municipality does not take the required measures, then
the land would be de-reserved and the owner can develop the same
– In the present case, reservation of the appellant’s land has lapsed
and it has become available to the appellant to be developed –
282
   [2019] 11 S.C.R. 282
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
283
BALAJI ASSOCIATES THR. ITS PARTNER v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Further, writ courts, usually, should not indulge themselves in factual
findings, however the present case has been dragged too long and
any further delay would unduly affect the right to enjoy property
and benefits thereof – This case turns on the aspect of admission
on the part of the respondents, that the second notice was received
on 02.09.15 – Second notice can be said to have reached the
Municipality on 02.09.15, after the expiry of the stipulated period
– State Government directed to notify the lapsing of the reservation
by an order to be published in the Official Gazette as per the
requirements of s.127(2) which shall be done as expeditiously as
possible, preferably within 4 months from today.
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966–
s.127(1), (2) – Plea of the respondents that the fulfilment of
requirements u/s.127 (1) does not automatically de-reserve the land,
rather it’s a discretion, under sub-s.2 of s.127, bestowed on the
Government to choose the land to be de-reserved and publish the
same in the Official Gazette – Held: Such mandatory reading of the
sub-sec. 2 of s.127, would give unfettered power in the hands of
the State to pick and choose – Supreme Court needs to effectively
balance the power of eminent domain and the constitutional right
of property, which mandates a rational reading of the law, wherein
the declaration in the Official Gazette is only consequential and
the State needs to follow, if the conditions under sub-sec.127 (1)
stands satisfied – Interpretation of Statutes.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The statutory provision is clear and categorical.
Section 127 (1), Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,
1966 mandates that for an owner whose land is reserved, allotted
or designated, in terms of final regional plan or developmental
plan, needs to serve a notice to inform the municipality and seek
its response concerning its interest in acquiring the land, if he
wants his property to be de-reserved. As provided under the
Section, the time limit to serve such notice accrues from the end
date of stipulated period of ten years. Once such notice is served,
the municipality has 24 months to acquire or take steps for
acquisition of land. If municipality does not take the required
measures in accordance with the aforesaid provision, then the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
284
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
land would be de-reserved and the owner can develop the same
in accordance with law. Under sub-section 2 of Section 127 of the
Act, the Government is required to publish the de-reserved plots
in the Official Gazette. It is the contention of the respondents
that the second notice was pre-mature as the notice under Section
127 of the Act, is required to be served after completion of the
stipulated time. They place their reliance on the acknowledgment
signed by the Municipality, while receiving the post which records
the event of receival as 01.09.2015.  While the appellant rely on
the Minutes of the meeting of the General Body, to point the
factual discrepancy, wherein the letter is stated to have been
received only on 02.09.2015. The writ courts, usually, should not
indulge themselves in such factual findings. However, this case
has been dragged too long and any further delay would unduly
affect the right to enjoy property and benefits thereof. In any
case, this case turns on the aspect of admission on the part of the
respondents, that the second notice was received on 02.09.2015.
The respondents have not denied that their own General Body
Meeting Resolution has accepted that the date of receival was
02.09.2015. In this context the same is needed to be accepted.
The High Court has ignored the aforesaid aspect, to rely
exclusively on the acknowledgment. In the afore-stated
circumstances, reliance on the acknowledgment
would not be
safe. The second notice can be said to have reached the
Municipality on 02.09.2015, after the expiry of the stipulated
period. The time period of 24 months under Section 127 of the
Act, given to the municipal authorities, was increased from 6
months to 12 months by an Amending Act in 2009 (Mah. Act No.
16 of 2009);  further, this time period was increased from 12
months to 24 months in 2015 (Mah. Act No. 42 of 2015 w.e.f
29.08.2015). From the aforesaid amendments, it can be noted
that the legislative intent was to provide sufficient time for the
Municipalities to acquire the land as per the Developmental Plan
needed for effective town planning. In any case, the respondents
herein have admitted that the fresh proposal was forwarded from
the office of respondent no. 3 on 16.12.2016, and the same is
currently being processed through the Office of Land Acquisition
Officer, Amaravati. The appellant has been denied its right to
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
285
enjoy benefits of its possession by this protracted litigation. Mere
forwarding of the proposal, would not be sufficient under Section
127 (1) of the Act, as the concerned provision distinguishes
between ‘step of acquisition of land’ from ‘step for acquisition of
land’. The authorities have not taken sufficient steps towards
acquisition in this case. As the 24 months’ time period stipulated
under the law has elapsed, therefore the necessary procedures
under Section 127 (1) of the Act, stand satisfied for de-reserving
the disputed land. The respondents have finally argued that the
fulfilment of requirements under Section 127 (1) of the Act does
not automatically de-reserve the land, rather it’s a discretion,
under sub-section 2 of Section 127 of the Act, bestowed on the
Government to choose the land to be de-reserved and publish
the same in the Official Gazette. Such mandatory reading of the
sub-section 2 of Section 127 of the Act, would give unfettered
power in the hands of the State to pick and choose. This Court
needs to effectively balance the power of eminent domain and
the constitutional right of property, which mandates a rational
reading of the law, wherein the declaration in the Official Gazette
is only consequential and the State needs to follow, if the
conditions under sub-section 127 (1) stands satisfied. The usage
of ‘On lapsing of reservation, allocation or designation of any land
under sub-section (1)’ in the sub-section 2 of Section 127,
clearly
points towards the aforesaid interpretation. Moreover, the usage
of ‘shall’, also indicates the imperative nature of the sub-section,
which makes the Government duty bound to publish the same.
[Labour Commr. M. P. v. Burhanpur Tapti Mill Ltd. & Ors., AIR
1964 SC 1687] In this case, the requirement under Section 127
(1) are fully satisfied. [Paras 13-19] [290-F-H; 291-A-H; 292-A-
B; 293-D-H]
1.2 The reservation of the appellant’s land in question has
lapsed and the land has   become available to the appellant to be
developed as otherwise permissible. The State Government is
directed to notify the lapsing of the reservation by an order to be
published in the Official Gazette as per the requirements of
Section 127(2) of the Act which shall be done as expeditiously as
possible and preferably within a period of 4 months from today.
[Para 21] [294-C]
BALAJI ASSOCIATES THR. ITS PARTNER v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
286
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
Shrirampur Municipal Council, Shrirampur vs.
Satyabhamabai Bhimaji Dawkher and Ors. (2013) 5
SCC 627 : [2013] 2 SCR 664 – relied on.
Labour Commr. M. P. v. Burhanpur Tapti Mill Ltd. &
Ors. AIR 1964 SC 1687 : AIR 1964 SC 1687 – referred
to.
Case Law Reference
[2013] 2 SCR 664
relied on
Para 18
1964 AIR SC 1687
referred to
Para 19
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6661
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.02.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Nagpur, Nagpur in Writ Petition No.
5969/2017
Gagan Sanghi and Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advs. for the
Appellants.
Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Mithilesh Kumar Pandey,
Satyajit A. Desai, Ms. Anagha S. Desai and Shobhit Dwivedi, Advs. for
the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
N. V. RAMANA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal, by way of special leave, was filed against the
impugned final judgment and order dated 05.02.2018 in W.P. No. 5969
of 2017, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Nagpur
Bench).
3. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this
case are that the appellant is a partnership firm and its partners are the
joint owners of the land in the Survey No.7 Sub-division No.2, for a land
admeasuring 3H 90R of Mouja Durgavada, Tq.Morshi, District Amravati,
situated in the municipal limits of Nagar Parishad of the city of Morshi
[hereinafter referred to as the “disputed land”]. The
final development
plan for the city of Morshi was published on 11.07.2005 which came into
force from 01.09.2005. In the aforesaid plan the appellant’s land was
reserved for shopping centre and garden, by reservation no. 22 and 23
respectively.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
287
BALAJI ASSOCIATES THR. ITS PARTNER v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [N. V. RAMANA, J.]
4. Under Section 127 of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning
Act, 1966 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”], the owners could de-
reserve a plot of land by serving a notice, after the lapse of 10 years
from the date of such reservation i.e., 10 years from 01.09.2005 herein.
5. Accordingly, the appellant served the first notice, under Section
127 of the Act, on 13.07.2015 asking the municipality to either acquire
the disputed land or permit them to develop the same in accordance with
law. The aforesaid first notice was replied as being pre-mature. Moreover,
the appellant again on 31.08.2015 sent the second notice under Section
127 of the Act. At the outset we may note that the date of receival of the
second notice is heavily contested, being important we shall take up the
same in due course.
6. Thereafter on 22.09.2015, respondent no. 2 directed respondent
no. 3 to initiate the procedure required for acquisition of disputed land.
On 30.11.2015 there was a General Body Meeting of the Municipal
Council/Nagar Parishad, Morshi wherein it was decided that the disputed
land was required for development of garden/park and necessary
acquisition needs to be undertaken. For our purposes we need to observe
the minutes of the meeting which is as under-
As per Section 27 MRTP Act 1966, Survey no. 7 of Mouja
Durgavada Tq. Morshi, District Amravati reserved for Reservation
no. 22 Shopping
Centre and 23 Garden as per development Plan
(Excluded Plan) of Morshi City a discussion on the received notice
is done in the standing committee meeting of Nagar Parishad
Morshi.
In this matter, Adv. G.K. Mundhada, Khaparde Garden
issued a notice under Section 127 of MRTP Act, 1966 which
has inward number 5081 on Dt. 14/07/2015 and Inward no.
57 on Dt. 2/9/2015 in Nagar Parishad Office inward record
register.
…
Finally, in this meeting after discussion it is decided that the said
land is required by the Nagar Parishad. Hence proposal for land
acquisition is to be presented in front of Collector Amravati. Also,
the expenditure for said land should be done as per the Government
defined guidelines of 13th Finance Commission and 14th Finance
commission.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
288
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
Hence the standing committee is giving approval in majority for
all the expenses to be incurred in future for acquisition of the said
land.
Resolution approved by Majority.
(Emphasis supplied)
7. Further on 14.01.2016, respondent no. 3 submitted a proposal
for acquisition of the disputed land before the respondent no. 4 (Collector),
on the basis of the resolution passed on 30.11.2015. However, respondent
no. 4 informed respondent no. 3 that the aforesaid proposal was not in
order and the same needs to be resubmitted. A fresh proposal was
submitted by respondent no. 3, by letter dated 16.12.2016. It is brought
to our attention that nothing has proceeded further and accordingly,
acquisition has not taken place till this point of time.
8. Aggrieved by the fact that appellant was not allowed to enjoy
the benefit of its ownership in the aforesaid disputed land, appellant through
its partners filed a Writ Petition praying therein for a declaration that the
reservation of their land has lapsed under Section 127 of the Act and
other consequential relief.
9. The High Court by order dated 05.02.2018 dismissed the
impugned writ petition on two major premises. First, the High Court was
of the opinion that the second notice was sent prematurely thereby the
necessary procedures required under Section 127 of the Act for de-
reserving the land were not satisfied. Second, as the second notice dated
31.08.2015 was not satisfactory,
therefore there was no need for further
elaboration on steps, taken for acquiring the land, to be followed by the
municipality as required under Section 127 (1) and (2) of the Act.
10. Aggrieved by the aforesaid dismissal, the appellant has
approached this Court.
11. Having observed the facts, we need to briefly notice the
appellant’s contention herein. Appellant contends that the second notice
dated 31.08.2015 was received by the respondent authorities only on
02.09.2015 and not on 01.09.2015. Appellant rely extensively on the
minutes of the meeting which records the aforesaid fact and claims that
their notice was not premature. Further, the appellant contends that the
concerned authorities have not taken adequate steps to acquire the
aforesaid land in accordance with the mandate provided under Section
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
289
127 of the Act which consequentially entails de-reserving the aforesaid
land.
12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents
contend that on reading of the provisions of Section 127 (1) of the Act it
is clear that, an owner or a person interested in the land would be entitled
to serve a notice only after completion of the period of 10 years from the
date on which the Final Developmental Plan comes into force. In this
case, since the Final Developmental Plan had come into force on
01.09.2005, the notice dt. 31.08.2015 is served on the respondent no. 3
before the completion of the stipulated period of 10 years from the date
of coming into force of the Final Developmental Plan. Therefore, they
contend that the High Court has rightly observed the period of 10 years,
as mentioned in the aforesaid provision of Section 127 of the Act, is
finally yet to complete before service of notice under Section 127 and
hence the said notice under Section 127 issued by the appellant on
respondent no. 3 (Municipal Council, Morshi) would be treated as
premature. Also, the respondent no. 3 has submitted a land acquisition
proposal to the respondent no. 4. Hence, they argue that the High Court
has passed order to safeguard the interest of general public at large and
has thoroughly and judiciously stated that the provision for lapsing does
not become a tool to defeat the very purpose of the Act.
13. Having heard the arguments, we need to observe Section 127
of the
Act, which reads as under-
127. Lapsing of reservations.- 309[(1) If any land reserved,
allotted 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 310[or, if a declaration under sub-section (2) or
(4) of section 126 is not published in the Official Gazette  within
such period, the owner or any person interested  in the land may
serve notice, alongwith the documents showing his title or interest
in the said land, on the Planning Authority, the Development
authority or, as the case may be, the Appropriate Authority to that
effect; and if within 311[twenty-four 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 such
BALAJI ASSOCIATES THR. ITS PARTNER v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [N. V. RAMANA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
290
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
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.
312[(2) on lapsing of reservation, allocation or designation of any
land under sub-section (1), the Government shall notify the same,
by an order published in the Official Gazette.]
309 Section 127 re-numbered as sub-section (1) by Mah. Act
No.16 of 2009, dated 25th June, 2009.
310 Substituted for “or if proceedings for the acquisition of such
land under this Act or under 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 months” by
Mah. Act No.16 of 2009, dated 25th June, 2009.
311 Substituted for “twelve months” by the Maharashtra
Regional and Town Planning (Third Amendment) Act, 2015
(Mah. Act No.42 of 2015), dated 31-12-2015 (w.e.f. 29-08-
2015), s.7.
312 Sub-Section (2) added by Mah. Act No.16 of 2009, dated
25th June, 2009.
The statutory provision is clear and categorical. Section 127 (1),
mandates that for an owner whose land is reserved, allotted or designated,
in terms of final regional plan or developmental plan, needs to serve a
notice to inform the municipality and seek its response concerning its
interest in acquiring the land, if he wants his property to be de-reserved.
As provided under the Section, the time limit to serve such notice accrues
from the end date of stipulated period of ten years. Once such notice is
served, the municipality has 24 months to acquire or take steps for
acquisition of land. If municipality does not take the required measures
in accordance with the aforesaid provision, then the land would be de-
reserved and the owner can develop the same in accordance with law.
Under sub-section 2 of Section 127 of the Act, the Government is required
to publish the de-reserved plots in the Official Gazette.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
291
14. It is the contention of the respondents that the second notice
was pre-mature as the notice under Section 127 of the Act, is required
to be served after completion of the stipulated time. They place their
reliance on the acknowledgment signed by the Municipality, while
receiving the post which records the event of receival as 01.09.2015.
While the appellant rely on the Minutes of the meeting of the General
Body, to point the factual discrepancy, wherein the letter is stated to
have been received only on 02.09.2015.
15. In our considered opinion, the writ courts, usually, should not
indulge themselves in such factual findings. However, this case has been
dragged too long and any further delay would unduly affect the right to
enjoy property and benefits thereof. In any case, this case turns on the
aspect of admission on the part of the respondents, that the second notice
was received on 02.09.2015. There is no gain saying that the respondents
have not denied that their own General Body Meeting Resolution has
accepted that the date of receival was 02.09.2015. In this context we
need to accept the same. We may note that the High Court has ignored
the aforesaid aspect, to rely exclusively on the acknowledgment. In the
afore-stated circumstances, reliance on the acknowledgment would not
be safe. Having come to this understanding, we can conclude that the
second notice can be said to have reached the Municipality on 02.09.2015,
after the expiry of the
stipulated period.
16. Having decided the first aspect, we need to now turn our
attention to a different aspect under Section 127 (1) of the Act, regarding
the satisfaction of the actions undertaken by the Municipality, to acquire
or steps taken for acquiring, within the stipulated period of 24 months
from the service of notice.  We may note that the aforesaid time period
of 24 months under Section 127 of the Act, given to the municipal
authorities, was increased from 6 months to 12 months by an Amending
Act in 2009 (Mah. Act No. 16 of 2009);  further, this time period was
increased from 12 months to 24 months in 2015 (Mah. Act No. 42 of
2015 w.e.f 29.08.2015). From the aforesaid amendments, it can be noted
that the legislative intent was to provide sufficient time for the
Municipalities to acquire the land as per the Developmental Plan needed
for effective town planning.
17. In any case, the respondents herein have admitted that the
fresh proposal was forwarded from the office of respondent no. 3 on
16.12.2016, and the same is currently being processed through the Office
BALAJI ASSOCIATES THR. ITS PARTNER v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [N. V. RAMANA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
292
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
of Land Acquisition Officer, Amaravati. From the aforesaid narration,
there is no gain saying that the appellant has been denied its right to
enjoy benefits of its possession by this protracted litigation. Mere
forwarding of the proposal, would not be sufficient under Section 127
(1) of the Act, as the concerned provision distinguishes between ‘step of
acquisition of land’ from ‘step for acquisition of land’.
18. In this context, we may refer to the case of Shrirampur
Municipal Council, Shrirampur vs. Satyabhamabai Bhimaji
Dawkher and Ors., 2013 (5) SCC 627, wherein a three Judge Bench
of this Court has observed that-
42. We are further of the view that the majority in Girnar
Traders (2)1 had rightly observed that steps towards the
acquisition would really commence when the State
Government takes active steps for the acquisition of the
particular piece of land which leads to publication of the
declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act. Any other
interpretation of the scheme of Sections 126 and 127 of the 1966
Act will make the provisions wholly unworkable and leave the
landowner at the mercy of the Planning Authority and the State
Government.
43. The expression “no steps as aforesaid” used in Section
127 of the 1966 Act has to be read in the context of the
provisions of the 1894 Act and mere passing of a resolution
by the Planning Authority or sending of a letter to the
Collector or even the State Government cannot
be treated
as commencement of the proceedings for the acquisition
of land under the 1966 Act or the 1894 Act. By enacting
Sections 125 to 127 of the 1966 Act, the State Legislature has
made a definite departure from the scheme of acquisition enshrined
in the 1894 Act. But a holistic reading of these provisions makes
it clear that while engrafting the substance of some of the
provisions of the 1894 Act in the 1966 Act and leaving out other
provisions, the State Legislature has ensured that the landowners/
other interested persons, whose land is utilized for execution of
the Development plan/Town Planning Scheme, etc., are not left
high and dry. This is the reason why time limit of ten years has
been prescribed in Section 31(5) and also under Sections 126 and
127 of the 1966 Act for the acquisition of land, with a stipulation
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
293
that if the land is not acquired within six months of the service of
notice under Section 127 or steps are not commenced for
acquisition, reservation of the land will be deemed to have lapsed.
Shri Naphade’s interpretation of the scheme of Sections 126 and
127, if accepted, will lead to absurd results and the landowners
will be deprived of their right to use the property for an indefinite
period without being paid compensation. That would tantamount
to depriving the citizens of their property without the sanction of
law and would result in violation of Article 300A of the Constitution.
BALAJI ASSOCIATES THR. ITS PARTNER v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [N. V. RAMANA, J.]
1. Girnar Traders (2) v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 7 SCC 555
(emphasis supplied)
In line with the observations of this Court, we hold that the
authorities have not taken sufficient steps towards acquisition in this
case. As the 24 months’ time period stipulated under the law has elapsed,
therefore the necessary procedures under Section 127 (1) of the Act,
stand satisfied for de-reserving the disputed land.
19. The respondents have finally argued that the fulfilment of
requirements under Section 127 (1) of the Act does not automatically
de-reserve the land, rather it’s a discretion, under sub-section 2 of Section
127 of the Act, bestowed on the Government to choose the land to be
de-reserved and publish the same in the Official Gazette. Such mandatory
reading of the sub-section 2 of Section 127
of the Act, would give
unfettered power in the hands of the State to pick and choose. This
Court needs to effectively balance the power of eminent domain and the
constitutional right of property, which mandates a rational reading of the
law, wherein the declaration in the Official Gazette is only consequential
and the State needs to follow, if the conditions under sub-section 127 (1)
stands satisfied. The usage of ‘On lapsing of reservation, allocation
or designation of any land under sub-section (1)’ in the sub-section
2 of Section 127, clearly points towards the aforesaid interpretation.
Moreover, the usage of ‘shall’, also indicates the imperative nature of
the sub-section, which makes the Government duty bound to publish the
same. [refer Labour Commr. M. P. v. Burhanpur Tapti Mill Ltd. &
Ors., AIR 1964 SC 1687] In this case, we are of the opinion that the
requirement under Section 127 (1) are fully satisfied.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
294
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
20. Our attention has been drawn to certain adverse remarks
passed by the High Court against the advocate, who appeared before it
for the appellant herein, as contained in line numbers 1 to 7 and 76 to 79
of paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment. In our considered opinion,
such adverse remarks were uncalled for, un-necessary and therefore,
the same stand expunged from the record.
21. In the light of the aforesaid observations, the inevitable
conclusion is that the reservation of the appellant’s land in question has
lapsed and the land has become available to the appellant to be developed
as otherwise permissible. Appeal, therefore deserves to be allowed and
is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer. The State Government is
directed to notify the lapsing of the reservation by an order to be published
in the Official Gazette as per the requirements of Section 127(2) of the
Act which shall be done as expeditiously as possible and preferably
within a period of 4 months from today.
22. Appeal stands allowed in the above said terms. No order as to
costs.
Divya Pandey
Appeal allowed.