RAVINDRA v. GHUGE & R.M. JOSHI, JJ. DATED
Case Details
2024:BHC-AUG:9142-DB ( 1 ) wp8360.23IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 8360 OF 20231.Sau. Minakshi Pramod Sonar..PetitionersAge. 56 years, Occ. Business & Agriculture,R/o. Plot No. 5/B, Ajintha Housing Society,Jalgaon, Tal. & Dist. Jalgaon.2.Mr. Ramchandra Daulat PatilAge.58 years, Occ. Business & Agriculture,R/o. At Post Dholi, Tal. Parola,Dist. Jalgaon.Versus1.The State of Maharashtra..RespondentsThrough the SecretaryMinistry of Urban DevelopmentMantralaya, Mumbai – 32.2.The Director,Town Planning Department,Pune.3.The Deputy Director,Town Planning, Nashik Division,Nashik.4.Municipal Corporation Jalgaon,Through its Commissioner.5.Town Planner,Municipal Corporation JalgaonJalgaon.
Facts
( 2 ) wp8360.236.Assistant Director, Town PlanningJalgaon DivisionJalgaon.7.The District Collector,Jalgaon.Mr.A.P. Bhandari, Advocate for the Petitioners.Mr.P.K. Lakhotiya, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 7.Mr.L.V. Sangit, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & R.M. JOSHI, JJ. DATED: 17.04.2024ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE,J.] :-01.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by theconsent of the parties.02.The Petitioners have putforth prayer clauses “B”, “C” and “D” asunder :-“(B)By appropriate writ, order or direction it be held that, the land bearingGut No. 114, of Village Pimprala Taluka & Dist. Jalgaon, situated within theMunicipal Limits of Jalgaon to the extent of an area of 968 sq. mtrs. Stoodreleased from Reservations no.111 for “Primary School” and the Petitionersare entitled to utilize the same as per the user permissible to the adjacentland owners i.e. Residential Use. ( 3 ) wp8360.23(C)The Honourable Court be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus or anyother appropriate writ, directing the respondent no.1 to issue a notification interms of section 127(2) of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,1966, thereby notifying release of land bearing Gut No.114 of VillagePimprala Taluka & Dist. Jalgaon, situated within the Municipal Limits ofJalgaon to the extent of an area of 968 Sq. Mtrs. from Reservations no. 111for “Primary School”.(D)Pending hearing and final disposal of the present Writ Petition, therespondents be directed to release land bearing Gut no.114 of VillagePimprala Taluka & Dist. Jalgaon, situated within the Municipal Limits ofJalgaon to the extent of an area of 968 Sq. Mtrs. from Reservations no.111 for“Primary School” and permit the petitioner to develop the said lands, as if thesame is not reserved.”03.On 15.03.2024, after this matter was heard for quite some time,we had passed the following order :-“1.A hearing in this matter has commenced. After the hearingprogressed to some length, it was noticed that, an issue pertaining to theAcquiring Body offering TDR in response to the purchase notice, the landowner consenting to accept the TDR by a communication dated 02/01/2017in the backdrop of the purchase notice dated 29/10/2016, the Acquiring Bodypublishing a public notice in the newspaper on 28/08/2020, calling forobjections, and the delay caused compelled the Petitioner to withdraw theconsent for accepting TDR by a communication dated 30/09/2020, will haveto be gone into. 2. A question that arises is, what would be the effect of the withdrawal of ( 4 ) wp8360.23the consent on the purchase notice dated 29/10/2016 and whether theabove factors would amount to initiating steps towards acquisition of theland by the Acquiring Authority, in view of the law laid down in GirnarTraders Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, AIR (2007) SC 3180 and ShreeVinayak Builders and Developers Vs. State of Maharashtra and others,(2022) 4 Mh.L.J. 739 (Full Bench) : (2022) DGLS (Bom.) 2061.3. The learned Advocates for the respective sides desire to research on thisaspect and look up for reported judgments.4.By consent of the parties, this matter is treated as ‘Part Heard’ and islisted on 01/04/2024.”SEQUENCE OF DATES AND EVENTS 04.Going by the peculiarity of the proceedings under Section 127 ofthe Maharashtra Regional And Town Planning Act, 1966, the dates andsequence of events gain significance. It would be apposite to refer to suchsequence of events as under :-a)There is no dispute that the Petitioners are the owners ofthe Writ property.b)Land bearing Gat No.114 of village Pimprala, Tal. & Dist.Jalgaon, situated within the Municipal limits of Jalgaon City ( 5 ) wp8360.23Municipal Corporation, admeasuring 968 sq. mtr., is a parcel ofland which is affected by the reservation for a primary school.c)On 10.08.2004, a development plan for the city of Jalgaon,was sanctioned.d)Actually, one part of the development plan was sanctionedon 11.02.2002, which was applicable from 07.04.2002. Theexcluded part was sanctioned on 10.08.2004.e)In the development plan sanctioned on 07.04.2002, theland was notified as reserved for a primary school at Sr. No.111,for an area admeasuring 948 sq. mtrs. belonging to thePetitioners.f)Since the Petitioners could not beneficially use the landowned by them on account of reservation, a purchase noticedated 29.10.2016, was served on the Municipal Corporation.g)On 16.12.2016, the Assistant Director, Town Planning,issued a letter, after receiving the purchase notice from thePetitioners, offering TDR to the Petitioners for the affectedreservation.h)By communication dated 02.01.2017, the Petitionersinformed the Corporation that they had received their offer for
Legal Reasoning
( 12 ) wp8360.23and subsection (3), if a declaration, is not made, within the period referred to insub-section (2) (or having been made, the aforesaid period expired on thecommencement of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning [(Amendment)Act, 1993)], the State Government may make a fresh declaration for acquiringthe land under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation andTransparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, inthe manner provided by sub-sections (2) and (3) of this section, subject to themodification that the market value of the land shall be the market value at thedate of declaration in the Official Gazette, made for acquiring the land afresh.]127. (1) If any land reserved, allotted or designated for any purpose specified inany plan under this Act is not acquired by agreement within ten years from thedate on which a final Regional Plan, or final Development Plan comes into forceor if a declaration under sub-section (2) or (4) of section 126 is not published inthe Official Gazette within such period, the owner or any person interested in theland may serve notice, alongwith the documents showing his title or interest inthe said land, on the Planning Authority, the Development Authority or, as thecase may be, the Appropriate Authority to that effect; and if within twenty fourmonths] from the date of the service of such notice, the land is not acquired or nosteps as aforesaid are commenced for its acquisition, the reservation, allotment ordesignation shall be deemed to have lapsed, and thereupon, the land shall bedeemed to be released from such reservation, allotment or designation and shallbecome available to the owner for the purpose of development as otherwise,permissible in the case of adjacent land under the relevant plan. (2) On lapsing of reservation, allocation or designation of any land undersub-section (1), the Government shall notify the same, by an order published inthe Official Gazette.”10.There is no dispute as regards the steps initiated by the ( 13 ) wp8360.23Corporation in 2002, when it was a Municipal Council, for acquisition of land.The issue is as to whether steps as expected of the Acquiring Authoritytowards acquisition of the reserved land, have been taken after the purchasenotice under section 127 was issued. The learned Advocate for the Petitionershas canvassed that an acquisition would be complete, not just by initiation ofthe steps as required, but a surrender of the land must also occur infurtherance of the steps initiated. As per the prevailing practice, a letter ofintent has to be issued in favour of the Petitioners after the AcquiringAuthority agrees to grant the TDR, and in this case, as per the demand of thePetitioners for double TDR.11.A useful reference can be made to the judgment delivered by theHon’ble Supreme Court in Girnar Traders Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.,(2007) 7 SCC 555. It was held by a majority view that the steps foracquisition as provided under section 127, have to be taken, by keeping inmind the time-lag between the period the land is brought under reservationand the inaction on the part of the State to acquire it. Making of anapplication by the Municipal Authority under section 126(1)(c) to the StateGovernment for acquisition of the land is not a requisite step. It was also held ( 14 ) wp8360.23that if moving of an application is considered to be a step towards acquisition,the Authority will simply move an application and wait for further action onthe part of the State and contend that till then there could not be any lapsingof reservation under section 127. It was further held that where the plainliteral interpretation were to manifestly result in absurdity or injustice that isnever intended by the Legislature, the Court is entitled to modify the languageused to achieve the intention of the Legislature and produce a rational result.Hardships, inconvenience, friction, uncertainty or confusion should beavoided. Hence, requisite step should be a step of acquisition of land and nota step for acquisition of land. Requisite steps towards commencement of theacquisition in such a situation would not include a step which may not resultin actual commencement of acquisition and is taken merely for the purpose ofseeking time so that section 127 does not come into operation, to defeat thepurpose and object of the scheme of the acquisition under the MRTP Act.12.What we find from the peculiar facts of this case is that theMunicipal Council apparently did not have the money to pay the Petitioners.The defence of such Corporation that it has financial difficulties, is noticed inpractically every case. The Corporation offered TDR to the Petitioners. The ( 15 ) wp8360.23Petitioners’ acceptance was not plain and simple. In-fact, the Petitionersdemanded double TDR and put a condition on the Corporation that if thedouble TDR is made available, only then the Petitioners are agreeable. Inorder to conclude the Contract, the Corporation should have responded byintimating the Petitioners that their demand for double TDR is accepted. Theycould have put a condition that such acceptance may be subject to objectionsthat may be received. However, the Corporation was totally silent. In suchmatters, the doctrine of ‘acceptance sub silentio’ would not be applicable tothe Corporation. There has to be a specific acceptance. The Corporation didnot react to the demand of the Petitioners. After three years and four months,the Corporation published a notice in daily ‘Tarun Bharat’, which is not placedon record before us by the Corporation. It is the contention of the learnedAdvocate for the Corporation, on instructions, since this aspect has not beenspecifically dealt with in the affidavit-in-reply, that the purpose of publishingthe notice was to call for objections.13.We, thus, find from the facts before us that after the Petitionerresponded by demanding TDR vide its communication dated 02.01.2017, theCorporation has not accepted the said demand. In such matters, inferences on ( 16 ) wp8360.23the basis of assumptions and presumptions cannot nullify or neutralize theissuance of purchase notice which is a decisive step on the part of the landowners.14.In Shree Vinayak Builders (Supra), the learned Full Bench notedthe submissions of one of the parties in paragraph No.10, which have beenaccepted in principle only to the extent that a contract is concluded whenthere is an offer and the same is accepted. It was also approved that theapproval or acceptance made by the Acquiring Authority has to be consideredas acceptance of the offer which could conclude the contract and that wouldtantamount to a step towards commencement of the proceedings ofacquisition of land.15.It has been held in paragraph Nos. 33 to 42 in Shree VinayakBuilder (Supra) as under :-“33. The above discussion thus would show that whenever a question arisesas to whether or not a land owner or lessee, as the case may be, is within hisright to withdraw his application made for grant of FSI or TDR after itsapproval by acquiring authority, it's answer would depend upon the facts andcircumstances of each case. The facts and circumstances of each case wouldhave to be examined individually and it would have to be ascertained as towhether or not there has occurred any concluded contract between the ( 17 ) wp8360.23parties. Sometimes it may happen that the application made by the landowner or lessee is only in the nature of invitation to offer or proposal fromthe acquiring authority and the approval given to such an application byacquiring authority subject to the condition of surrender of the land would bean offer. At other time, there may be a case when the land owner or lessee inthe application itself indicates that he is offering to surrender the land havingcertain area and quantifies the FSI or TDR to which he is entitled to receiveand such specific application is accepted in an absolute and unqualifiedmanner. In such a case the application would be an offer and it's acceptancewould be an agreement within the meaning of Section 2 (e) and would alsobe a contract under Section 10 of the Contract Act if all other requirements ofa valid contract are fulfilled. So, the question about the right to withdraw anapplication made for grant of FSI or TDR can be answered in the affirmativeonly when there is no concluded contract between the parties.34. We are, thus, of the view that once there is a concluded contract betweenthe land owner or the lessee and the acquiring authority as regards grant ofmonetary compensation or grant of TDR/FSI in lieu of compensation, theland owner or the lessee cannot withdraw his request and thereby refuse tosurrender the land. He can withdraw his such request only if there is noconcluded contract between the parties. What would be considered to be aconcluded contract between the parties, would be a question of fact to bedetermined by considering all the relevant facts and circumstances of eachcase.35. Now, we will consider the issue of what constitutes a step commencingthe acquisition proceeding in the context of Section 126 (1) (b) of the MRTPAct.36. Section 127 deals with lapsing of reservation. This section provides that ifany land reserved, allotted or designated for any purpose specified in any ( 18 ) wp8360.23plan under MRTP Act is not acquired by agreement or otherwise within 10years from the date on which the final plan comes into force, the owner orany person interested can serve a purchase notice to the concernedauthorities. If the Authorities do not acquire the land or take steps within 24months from the date of service of such notice for acquisition of land, thereservation, allotment or designation shall be deemed to have lapsed andthereupon the land shall be deemed to be released from such reservationallotment or designation and shall become available to the owner for thepurpose of development, as permissible in the case of adjacent land under therelevant plan.37. In Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Dr. Hakimwadi TenantsAssociation and Others, 1988 (Supp) SCC 55, the Hon'ble Supreme Courtheld that the steps towards commencement of the acquisition wouldnecessarily be the steps for acquisition and not a step, which may not resultinto acquisition and merely for the purpose of seeking time so that section127 does not come into operation. It was held that steps for acquisition of theland would be issuance of the declaration under Section 6 of the LandAcquisition Act. The making of an application to the State Government foracquisition of the land would not be a step for acquisition of the land underreservation.38. In Girnar Traders Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2007) 7 SCC555, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the entire scheme ofSections 126 and 127 observed that the step taken under the section withinthe time stipulated should be towards acquisition of land. It is a step ofacquisition and not step for acquisition of land. It is trite that failure ofauthorities to take steps which result in actual commencement of acquisitionof land cannot be permitted to defeat the purpose and object of the scheme ofacquisition under the MRTP Act by merely moving an application requestingthe Government to acquire the land, which Government may or may not ( 19 ) wp8360.23accept. Any step which may or may not culminate in the step for acquisitioncannot be said to be a step towards acquisition.39. In Shrirampur Municipal Council,Shrirampur Vs. Satyabhamabai BhimajiDawkher, (2013) 5 SCC 627, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated thefinding in Girnar Traders and held that mere passing of a resolution by thePlanning Authority or sending of a letter to the Collector or even the StateGovernment cannot be treated as commencement of the proceeding for theacquisition of land. It is held that the State Legislature has prescribed the timelimit to ensure that the land owners/other interested persons whose land isutilized for execution of the Development Plan/Town Planning Scheme etcare not left high and dry.40. These principles have been reiterated in Poona Timber Merchants andSaw Mill Owners Association Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2015) 13 SCC544, Chhabildas vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2018) 2 SCC 784 and inthe recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kolhapur MunicipalCorporation & Ors. Vs. Vasant Madadev Patil (dead) through LegalRepresentatives and others (2022) 5 SCC 758.41. It is thus well settled that the step taken under the aforestated sectionshould be an irreversible step, which will culminate in acquisition of land.Hence, mere grant of approval or passing of resolution by the authoritiesconcerned for grant of TDR in lieu of monetary compensation cannot betreated as a step for acquisition of land, but it is the conclusion of a contractregarding acquisition of land by granting FSI/TDR which constitutes a stepfor acquisition of land. Surrender of land with a view to obtaining FSI/TDRcan be a step to commence acquisition proceedings, if it is something bywhich conclusion of contract occurs. There may be, however, be cases inwhich by acts and conduct of parties contract in terms of Section 126(1)(b) ofthe MRTP Act is concluded even before surrender of land and the latter act isonly consequential to contract between the parties. Ultimately, it all boils ( 20 ) wp8360.23down to the stage when the contract between parties concludes.42. In the case of Asha Sunil Zawar (supra) the Division Bench at Aurangabadhas taken a view that offering compensation of TDR within 24 months fromthe date of receipt of purchase notice is the step to commence the acquisitionof the reserved land, that the option of TDR does not rest with the landowner, that the land owner cannot insist upon planning authority to acquirethe land only by adopting clause (c) of Section 126 of the MRTP Act. We havealready clarified the law in this regard and the clarification given by us asabove does not permit us to endorse the view taken in Asha Sunil Zawar(supra) and, therefore, we find that the view so taken therein does notrepresent the correct position of law.”[Emphasis supplied] 16.As regards the issue of withdrawal of the offer or application, itwas held in Shree Vinayak Builders (Supra), that the owner or lessee, as thecase may be, is within his rights to withdraw his application made for grant ofFSI or TDR, provided the facts and circumstances of each case would lead tosuch a conclusion on ascertation as to whether or not there has occurred anyconcluded contract between the parties. By way of an illustration, it is heldthat sometime it may happen that the application made by the land owner orthe lessee is only in the nature of an invitation, offer or proposal to theAcquiring Authority and approval given to such application by the AcquiringAuthority, subject to the condition of surrender of the land, would be an offer ( 21 ) wp8360.23and at other times, there may be a case when the land owner or lessee in theapplication itself indicates that he is offering to surrender the land havingcertain area and quantifies FSI and TDR to which he is entitled to receive andsuch application is accepted in an absolute and unqualified manner. In such acase, the application would be an offer and its acceptance would be anagreement within the meaning of section 2(e) and would amount to acontract under Section 10 of the Contract Act. The issue was answered byconcluding that a right to withdraw an application made for grant of FSI orTDR is permissible, only when there is no concluded contract between theparties.17.In the above backdrop, we once again advert to the factual matrixin this case. The Corporation had offered TDR vide its communication dated02.11.2016. On 02.01.2017, the Petitioners informed the Corporation thatthey would agree to accept TDR only if it is twice the offer that has been madeby the Corporation. In our view, this would not amount to a concludedcontract between the parties, since the offer of the Corporation was of a singleTDR and the demand of the Petitioners was twice the said TDR. There was nomeeting of minds. Nevertheless, the response of the Petitioners gave an ( 22 ) wp8360.23opportunity to the Corporation to respond by either accepting the demand orrejecting it. It is nobody’s case that there could be a deemed acceptance of thedemand by maintaining silence over a period of three years and four months.In such matters, there is no scope for presumption that the silence of theCorporation would tantamount to acceptance of the demand of thePetitioners. The Corporation went into deep slumber for three years and fourmonths and claims to have published a notice on 28.08.2020 in daily ‘TarunBharat’, calling for objections. This is meaningless, until the contract isconcluded.18.This issue is squarely covered by the view taken by the Hon'bleSupreme Court in Girnar Traders (Supra), wherein it has been concluded thata rational result is expected in pursuance to the purchase notice under section127. Hardships, inconvenience, friction, uncertainty or confusion, should beavoided. The requisite step should be a step of acquisition of land and not astep for acquisition of land. The requisite step towards commencement of theacquisition would not include a step which may not result in actualcommencement of acquisition and is taken merely for the purpose of seekingtime in order to neutralize the purchase notice under section 127. This is ( 23 ) wp8360.23exactly what has happened in the case before us. The Corporation, to refer tothe often repeated idiom, has shown a carrot to the Petitioner. The Petitionersmade a specific demand. This demand was not accepted by the Corporationeven within two years from the date of the demand by the Petitioners, thoughthe law mandates that a contract must be concluded between the partieswithin the two years, in order to result into a step taken towards acquisition.There has been no response from the Corporation for three years and fourmonths, which convinces us that the law laid down in Girnar Graders (Supra)on this count would squarely be applicable.19.In view of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed. The landbearing Gat No.114, admeasuring 968 sq. mtrs. stands released fromreservation No. 111 for primary school. The Corporation shall communicateto Respondent No.1 within 30 days, that the said land is withdrawn fromreservation. Respondent No.1 shall issue a Notification under section 127(2)of the Maharashtra Regional And Town Planning Act, 1966, thereby releasingthe land from the reservation, within 90 days.20.Rule is made absolute in above terms. ( 24 ) wp8360.23[PER : R.M. JOSHI, J] :-21.I am in complete agreement with the view taken by BrotherJustice Ghuge. I wish to only add that, in view of the provisions of theContract Act, in order to contemplate a contract as concluded contract, therehas to be an offer by one party and acceptance thereof by another. Thecondition for such acceptance is that it should be absolute and unqualified. Inthe present case, the offer made by the Respondents for TDR is not acceptedby the Petitioners. In-fact, there was counter-offer for double the TDRproposed by the Respondents. In order to term it as a concluded contractbetween the parties, there ought to have been acceptance of that offer of thePetitioners by the Respondents. We find no evidence on record in order toindicate that the offer made by the Petitioners has been accepted by theRespondents. As a result of which, it would not be a contract within themeaning of Section 2(e) r/w section 10 of the Contract Act.[R.M. JOSHI,J.][RAVINDRA V. GHUGE,J.]snk/2024/APR24/wp8360.23
Arguments
( 6 ) wp8360.23TDR and that the offer for TDR is accepted, only if the TDR istwice the offer made by the Corporation, as per the DevelopmentControl Regulations as applicable to the “D” class MunicipalCorporations.i)The affidavit-in-reply filed by Mr.Digesh Damodar Tayde,Assistant Director of Town Planning, Municipal City MunicipalCorporation contains three paragraphs indicating that theCorporation called upon the Petitioners to tender a proposal fordemanding TDR.j)On 03.04.2017, the Petitioners again communicated to theCorporation that they are willing to accept the TDR, only if it istwice the offer made by the Corporation.k)After a lapse of three years and four months, theCorporation published a notice in daily ‘Tarun Bharat’ on28.08.2020, calling for objections.l)There is no averment in the reply of the Corporation, in asmuch as, no document on record to indicate that the demand ofthe Petitioners seeking double TDR, has been accepted orapproved.m)On 23.09.2022, the Petitioners communicated to theCorporation that there has been no acceptance of their demand ( 7 ) wp8360.23and merely because a notice is published in daily ‘Tarun Bharat’,there is no concluded contract, as no letter of intent has beenissued in their favour. In the said communication, the conditionalwillingness to accept double TDR was withdrawn by thePetitioners.SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES05.The contention of the Corporation is that the contract isconcluded, the moment it showed its willingness to grant the TDR andwhether the Petitioners demanded double the TDR, is inconsequential. Sincethe Petitioners agreed in principle to accept the TDR, it is a concludedcontract. Our attention is drawn to paragraph No.10 of the judgmentdelivered by the learned Full Bench of this Court in Shree Vinayak Buildersand Developers Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2022) 4 Mh.L.J.739, whichcontains the submissions of the learned Advocate representing a party.Paragraph No.10 reads as under :-“10. Shri Puranik, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3 furthersubmits that in case of acquisition of land by grant of FSI or TDR, the contractbetween the parties is concluded the moment the application of the landowner or lessee, as the case may be, for grant of FSI or TDR, is approved oraccepted by the acquiring authority and surrender of land by the land owner ( 8 ) wp8360.23or lessee, as the case may be, is only a formality which must be completed bythe land owner or lessee. He submits that this is because of the fact that acontract is concluded when there is an offer and its acceptance. He submitsthat an application made by the land owner or lessee for grant of FSI or TDRhas to be considered as an offer made by the land owner or lessee and itsapproval or acceptance made by the acquiring authority has to be consideredas acceptance of the offer, which then would conclude the contract, making itto be a step of commencement of proceeding for acquisition of land fromwhere there cannot be any withdrawal of application for grant of FSI or TDRmade by the land owner or the lessee.”06.The learned Advocate for the Corporation, therefore, canvassedthat once the contract is concluded, the Petitioners’ purchase notice standsextinguished and this Petition cannot be entertained. The Petitioners willhave to issue a fresh purchase notice.07.The learned AGP adopts the submissions of the learned Advocatefor the Corporation and further submits that, what could be a concludedcontract, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Herelies upon paragraph 41 in Shree Vinayak Builders (Supra), which reads asunder :-“41. It is thus well settled that the step taken under the aforestated sectionshould be an irreversible step, which will culminate in acquisition of land. ( 9 ) wp8360.23Hence, mere grant of approval or passing of resolution by the authoritiesconcerned for grant of TDR in lieu of monetary compensation cannot betreated as a step for acquisition of land, but it is the conclusion of a contractregarding acquisition of land by granting FSI/TDR which constitutes a stepfor acquisition of land. Surrender of land with a view to obtaining FSI/TDRcan be a step to commence acquisition proceedings, if it is something bywhich conclusion of contract occurs. There may be, however, be cases inwhich by acts and conduct of parties contract in terms of Section 126(1)(b) ofthe MRTP Act is concluded even before surrender of land and the latter act isonly consequential to contract between the parties. Ultimately, it all boilsdown to the stage when the contract between parties concludes.”08.He, therefore, further submits that once there is a concludedcontract in the light of the step taken towards the acquisition, it is anirreversible step and that would culminate into acquisition of land.ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS09.Sections 126 and 127 of the Maharashtra Regional And TownPlanning Act, 1966, read as under :-“126. (1) When after the publication of a draft Regional plan, a Development orany other plan or town planning scheme, any land is required or reserved for anyof the public purposes specified in any plan or scheme under this Act at any time,the Planning Authority, Development Authority, or as the case may be, any ( 10 ) wp8360.23Appropriate Authority may, except as otherwise provided in section 113A acquirethe land,— (a) by agreement by paying an amount agreed to, or (b) in lieu of any such amount, by granting the land-owner or the lessee,subject, however, to the lessee paying the lessor or depositing with the PlanningAuthority, Development Authority or Appropriate Authority, as the case may be,for payment to the lessor, an amount equivalent to the value of the lessor’sinterest to be determined by any of the said Authorities concerned on the basis ofthe principles laid down in the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency inLand Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Floor Space Index(FSI) or Transferable Development Rights (TDR) against the area of landsurrendered free of cost and free from all encumbrances, and also furtheradditional Floor Space Index or Transferable Development Rights against thedevelopment or construction of the amenity on the surrendered land at his cost,as the Final Development Control Regulations prepared in this behalf provide, or (c) by making an application to the State Government for acquiring suchland under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency inLand Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.and the land (together with the amenity, if any so developed orconstructed) so acquired by agreement or by grant of Floor Space Index oradditional Floor Space Index or Transferable Development Rights under thissection or under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation andTransparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, asthe case may be, shall vest absolutely free from all encumbrances in the PlanningAuthority, Development Authority, or as the case may be, any AppropriateAuthority.](2) On receipt of such application, if the State Government is satisfiedthat the land specified in the application is needed for the public purpose thereinspecified, or if the State Government (except in cases falling under section 49 andexcept as provided in section 113A) itself is of opinion that any land included inany such plan is needed for any public purpose, it may make a declaration to thateffect in the Official Gazette, in the manner provided in section 19 of the Right to ( 11 ) wp8360.23Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation andResettlement Act, 2013, in respect of the said land. The declaration so publishedshall, notwithstanding anything contained in the said Act, be deemed to be adeclaration duly made under the said section :Provided that, subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), no suchdeclaration shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date ofpublication of the draft Regional Plan, Development Plan or any other Plan, orScheme, as the case may be.] (3) On publication of a declaration under the said section 19, theCollector shall proceed to take order for the acquisition of the land under the saidAct; and the provisions of that Act shall apply to the acquisition of the said landwith the modification that the market value of the land shall be,—(i) where the land is to be acquired for the purposes of a new town, themarket value prevailing on the date of publication of the notification constitutingor declaring the Development Authority for such town;(ii) where the land is acquired for the purposes of a Special PlanningAuthority, the market value prevailing on the date of publication of thenotification of the area as undeveloped area ; and(iii) in any other case, the market value on the date of publication of theinterim development plan, the draft development plan or the plan for the area orareas for comprehensive development, whichever is earlier, or as the case may be,the date of publication of the draft Town Planning Scheme : Provided that, nothing in this sub-section shall affect the date for thepurpose of determining the market value of land in respect of which proceedingsfor acquisition commenced before the commencement of the MaharashtraRegional and Town Planning (Second Amendment) Act, 1972 : Provided further that, for the purpose of clause (ii) of this sub-section, themarket value in respect of land included in any undeveloped area notified undersub-section (1) of section 40 prior to the commencement of the MaharashtraRegional and Town Planning (Second Amendment) Act, 1972, shall be themarket value prevailing on the date of such commencement.(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the proviso to sub-section (2)