SC quashes BMC’s acquisition notice

BMC fails to complete the purchase proceedings from the owner in the stipulated 10 years

The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) has lost its claim to prime property measuring 4,504 sq metres at Carmichael Road in south Mumbai. Reason: It failed to initiate the purchase proceeding from the owner within 10 years (by 2001).

The civic body wanted to acquire the land from Girnar Traders for providing a playground for children in the area. The Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act (MRTPA), 1966, stipulates that land acquisition must be completed within 10 years of serving a notice on the land owner.

However, in 2001 Girnar Traders asked the civic body and the state government to free the land from the acquisition notice as the authorities hadn't completed the takeover proceedings and had instead extended its period for another 10 years.

The government didn't relent. And in 2002, the BMC's Improvements Committee recommended initiation of acquisition proceedings. The plot owner moved the Bombay High Court saying the state government couldn't acquire the plot now after the expiry of time limit for it. The high court rejected the plea.

In its plea before the Supreme Court, Girnar's counsel Soli J Sorabjee and UU Lalit argued that Section 127 of the MRTPA envisages acquisition of land within six months. Else, steps have to be taken for the acquisition of land within six months.

If the land has not been acquired or no step has been taken to acquire it within six months of the acquisition notice, the government can't take over the land. The counsel also argued that the Act protects a citizen against arbitrary and irrational executive action.

"It cannot be doubted that 10 years is a long period for a person's land to be kept in reservation. Section 127 gives the owner an opportunity for dereservation of the land if no steps are taken for acquisition by the authorities within a period of six months in spite of service of notice for dereservation after the expiry of the 10-year period," Sorabjee said.

Agreeing with this contention, the apex court said "in view of our decision on the interpretation and applicability of Section 127 of the MRTP Act to the facts of the present case, the petitioners are entitled to the relief claimed''.

"As no steps have been taken by the Municipal Corporation for acquisition of the land within the time period, there is deemed dereservation of the land in question and the appellants (Girnar) are permitted to utilise the land", a bench of Justices BN Agrawal and PP Naolekar said.

Justice PK Balasubramanyan, another judge, refused to decide the issue saying the larger constitution bench should first decide the issue of applicability of the amended acquisition law to MRTPA.

Improvements Committee Chairman Yashodhar Phanse said he was unaware about the specifics of this case. He said, "Many a time, the cost of developing the plot is enormous. Often these plots are encroached upon. The cost of rehabilitating the encroachers defeats the reason for its acquisition."

He admitted to instances when the civic administration intentionally delayed land acquisition proposals to favour the owner. Recently two playgrounds in Colaba and a huge green plot at Hariyali village in Vikhroli were dereserved for similar reasons.