JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J.:---Heard Mrs. M.V. Shetty, learned Counsel for petitioners and Ms. Savla, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 viz. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay.

2. At the outset, we are constrained to observe that the first respondent viz. State of Maharashtra has not chosen to file any counter or return in opposition to the writ petition. Shockingly, nobody has appeared for State Government to argue the matter on their behalf. In the circumstances, we heard the learned Counsel for petitioners and learned Counsel for second respondent.

3. The petitioners claimed to be owners of a plot of land admeasuring 3646.23 sq. mtrs. known as Hakimwadi situate at the junction of Falkland Road and Eruchshaw Road, bearing Cadastral Survey No. 176, Tardeo Division, Bombay, particulars whereof are given in Exhibit-A. The said property was reserved for a Municipal Recreation ground in the "D" Ward Development Plan sanctioned by the State Government under Government Notification, Urban Development, Public Health and Housing Department No. TPB-4366/78109 dated 6-1-67. According to petitioners, the proceedings for acquisition of the said property were not commenced for more than 10 years. The petitioners then served a notice dated 1st July, 1977 under section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short "the M.R.T.P. Act") so that planning authority could either acquire the said property or release the same from reservation. It appears that correspondence ensued between the petitioners and the authorities of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (Planning Authority) thereafter and ultimately on 7th April, 1978 the first respondent in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) read with sub-section (2) of section 126 of the M.R.T.P. Act read with section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 declared that the property in question is needed for public purpose of recreation ground. The declaration under section 6 was published in the Government Gazette on 20th April, 1978. It is averred by the petitioners in the writ petition that though the petitioners submitted their statement of claim dated 11th April, 1979, no Award was passed and the Land Acquisition Officer informed the petitioners vide letter dated 19th July, 1980 that the acquisition proceedings for the land in question were to be kept in abeyance. The petitioners claim to have filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 1420 of 1980 in this Court for a direction to the concerned authorities to publish the award and pay compensation to the petitioners. This Court by order dated 28-1-1981 directed the Land Acquisition Officer to declare the Award and determine the compensation in respect of the property in question within six months therefrom. Thereafter it appears that several tenants of the property in question formed an Association styled Dr. Hakimwadi Tenants Association and got it registered under the Societies Registration Act and filed Writ Petition No. 799 of 1981 for quashing the proceedings for acquisition commenced by the Planning Authority and the consequent notification issued by first respondent on the ground that reservation of the land had lapsed. The learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 21st September, 1983 quashed and set aside the notification issued by first respondent under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and all steps subsequent to the issuance of the said notification. The learned Single Judge also declared that the planning authority and the State Government are not entitled to acquire the property in question in exercise of the powers under section 126 of the M.R.T.P. Act. A letters Patent Appeal was filed by respondent No. 2 before a Division Bench of this Court but without success. The second respondent also challenged the order of the learned Single Judge and that of Division Bench before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4139 of 1986. The said appeal was dismissed by the Apex Court on

Click Here to Read the rest of this document