.

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. In all these cases certain provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (in short the `Act) call for determination. Basically the scope and ambit of Section 127 of the Act is the pivotal provision. Three writ petitions were disposed of by the common judgment. Writ petition no.7846 of 2004 was filed by M/s C.V. Shah and A.V. Bhat. Writ petition no.9644 of 2004 was filed by Tajuddin Mohhammad bhai while writ petition no.5077 of 2004 was filed by Poona Timber Merchants and Saw Mill Owners Association. By the common judgment the High Court partly allowed the writ petition nos. 7846 and 9644 of 2004 while writ petition no.5077 of 2004 was dismissed. The High Court while granting partly relief in the writ petitions held as follows:

"(i) Writ Petition Nos. 7846 of 2004 and 9644 of 2004 are partly allowed.

(ii) The designation of the subject land being survey no.577, Hissa No.1, Survey No.577, Hissa No.2, Survey No.577, Hissa No.3 and Survey No.578, Hissa No.1 (part) in revised Development Plan of Pune City notified no. 5.1.1987 for `Timber Industries is declared to have lapsed under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, 1966.

(iii) Writ Petition no.5077 of 2004 is dismissed.

No costs."

3. After hearing all these appeals were concluded, it is noticed that scope and ambit of Section 127 came up for consideration by this Court in Civil Appeal No.3703 of 2003, civil appeal no.3922 of 2007 as three-Judge Bench was hearing the matter. Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan as his Lordship was the then, inter alia, observed as follows:

"When we interpret Section 127 of the Act, it is not possible to forget the impact of Section 126(l) of the Act. Obviously, the provisions have to be read harmoniously. The court can only postulate the question whether the authority under the MRTP Act has done which it possibly could, in terms of the statute. Therefore, while reading Section 127, we have to take note of the fact that the authority under the MRZ P Act can only make an application for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act and nothing more. Therefore, when Section 127 of the MRTP Act says that if within six 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 shall be deemed to lapse. We have to see what the Authority under MRTP Act has done. The first part of the provision above quoted is unambiguous and that is a case where the land is actually acquired. Or, in other words, the acquisition is complete. The second limb above quoted shows that it is possible to avert the lapse of the scheme if steps as aforesaid are commenced for its acquisition. The step that the authority under the MRTP Act can commence, is the step of applying to the State Government to acquire such land under the Land Acquisition Act. After all, the legislature has given the authority a locus poenitentiae for invoking the machinery for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, when a purchase notice is received by it, in all reasonableness, what it can do is to make an application to the State Government to make the acquisition within six months of the receipt of the purchase notice. Is it necessary or proper to whittle down the locus poenitentiae given to ensure that even at the last moment the lapsing of the scheme can be averted by the authority under the MRTP Act or even after ten years it can seek the acquisition of the land on the receipt of the purchase notice? It is in that context that in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. Dr. Hakimwadi Tenants Association &. Ors. (supra) this Court approved the view of the Bombay High Court that it is enough if the application is made by the Authority for acquisition of the land. Suppose, immediately on receipt of a purchase notice, the authority under the MRTP Act makes an application to the Government to acquire the land and for administrative reasons or