Bombay High Court's Division Bench consisting of Justice M.S.Sonak & Justice Kamal Khata were hearing the Writ Petition No. 5180 of 2022 centering around  a dispute regarding the reservation of land for public use, specifically for a Primary School in Pune, under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act). The initial  development plan for Pune was finalized on July 8, 1966, which included the reservation of certain lands for public purposes, including educational institutions. It was revised   after     following necessary procedure on January 5,1987. On March 28, 2013, the Pune Municipal Corporation issued a notice under section 26(1) of MRTP Act proposing to revise the development plan, which initiated a lengthy process of public consultation and assessment. Before the revision could be finalised, the petitioner, Mr. Arvind Balaji Walvekar, issued a notice on May 23, 2015, under section 127(1) of the MRTP Act, urging the Planning Authority to purchase the property in question. This notice was received by the Planning Authority on May 26, 2015. The petitioner contended that the Planning Authority had failed to take necessary steps to acquire the property within the stipulated time framed under the scheme of sections 126 and 127 of the MRTP Act. Subsequently, an amendment to section 127(1) of the MRTP Act came into effect on August 29, 2015, which extended the notice period from 12 months to 24 months for taking necessary steps for land acquisition. The revised development plan was ultimately  finalised on January 5, 2017, before the expiration of the 24-month notice period, which was set to end on May 22, 2017. The petitioner  argued that the reservation of the property should lapse due to the inaction of the Planning Authority.

The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr.G.S. Godbole relied on the Judgement of a Coordinate Bench in case of Santu Sukhdeo Jaibhave & Ors. vs. Nashik Municipal Corporation 2022 SCC OnLine Bom. 5273 and Sadashiv Tryambak Rejebahadur & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2023 SCC OnLine Bom. 999, which supported the petitioner's prima facie contentions. However the learned counsel for the Respondent, Mr.Abhijit Kulkarni relied upon yet another Judgement of a Coordinate Bench in case of Salim Nizam Sanadi & Ors. vs. Municipal Corporation, Sangli, Miraj and Kupwad City & Ors. 2019(2) All MR 630 and Shri. Amuksidha Shrikant Majge and Anr. vs. Commissioner, Sangli, Miraj and Kupwad Muncipal Corporation, Sangli and Ors. 2018 SCC OnLine Bom. 2844, which contends that as long as the period of 10 years from the finalisation of the revised development plan has not expired, there was no question of lapsing the reservation provided in the final revised development plan. These judgements prima facie supported the Respondents contentions.

While determining the case Prafulla C. Dave & Ors. vs. Municipal Commissioner, Pune and Ors. the cases of Salim Nizam Sanadi(supra) and Shri Amuksidha Shrikant Majge(supra) were considered the decision of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, while Santu Sukhdeo Jaibhave(supra) and Sadashiv Tryambak Rejebahadur(supra) were considered in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision affirming that earlier ruling. Mr. Godbole argued that the facts in Prafulla Dave differed because the notice under Section 127 was served after the revised Development Plan's finalisation, unlike in the current case, where the notice was served before finalisation. The Court observed that two sets of Co-equal Bench decisions appear to conflict, despite similar facts, leading to opposite conclusions. Additionally, none of these judgments considered observations by the Full Bench in Vishwas Bajirao Patil vs. State of Mahrashtra & Ors.2019 SCC OnLine Bom.1770, which clarified that no rights are vested in landowners merely by serving notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, the right would've vested only upon expiry of a period of one year from the date of such notice had the MRTP Act not be amended.

Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Kamal Khata noted the prima facie conflict between two sets of decisions from Co-equal Benches, which reached diametrically opposite conclusions regarding similar material facts. They observed that the judgments did not adequately consider the Full Bench's observations, which could significantly impact the case's outcome. The judges emphasised the need for a larger bench to resolve the conflicting interpretations of the law, highlighting the importance of clarity in legal principles governing land acquisition. In light of the conflicting judgments and the importance of the issues raised, the court directed the Registry to place the matter before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for consideration by a bench of more than two judges. 

Case Details: Arvind Balaji Walvekar vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. WP(C)No. 5180 of 2022