JUDGMENT - DESHPANDE R.G., J.:---This petition raises an important question pertaining to the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, and the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, precisely relating to the provisions of sections 126 and 127 of the M.R.T.P. Act. If for 10 years from the date of final publication of the Development Plan, the land reserved is not acquired by acquiring body or the authority for which it is to be acquired but before issuance of the notice under section 127 of the M.R.T.P. Act by the owners, some steps are taken by the acquiring body which thereafter are continued, whether in such a case could be it said that the reservation is lapsed in accordance with the provisions of that Act.

2.The facts, in short, necessary can be narrated as under:

In the year 1977, Survey No. 114, area O. 93 hectre of mouza Chikhali belonging to the petitioners and their brothers and sisters, was reserved for the purposes of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Chikhali vide Vikas Yojana Shashan Adhisuchana No. T.P.S.-2676-2053 Pudi-5 dated 6-1-1977. This was strictly in pursuance of the final development plan published, which had come into force on 17-2-1977. Facts further reveal that along with Survey No. 149, Survey No. 150 was also reserved by respondent No. 2 i.e. District Town Planning Officer, Buldhana, in the same year and the said reservation was appropriately notified in the Gazette by the authority concerned.

3.Inspite of this, such reservation having been so published, right from the year 1977 to be precise from February 1977, the respondent No. 5 i.e. Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Chikhali the acquiring body sat tight over the matter and did not take any steps by moving respondents 3 and 4 i.e. Collector, Buldhana and Sub-Divisional Officer/Special Land Acquisition Officer, Buldhana, respectively for acquisition of the land in question i.e. Survey No. 114 of the petitioners and their brothers and sisters.

4.It is clear from the record, 10 years lapsed on 12-2-1987. However, according to the petitioners, since no steps were taken, the said reservation could be deemed to have been lapsed and the petitioners, therefore, served a notice under section 127 of the Act to respondent No. 2 to de-reserve the said land which otherwise was under acquisition for the purpose of respondent No. 5. The notice issued under section 127 is dated 18-12-1989 i.e. in any case about 2 years and 10 months after the lapse of alleged 10 years from the date of final development plan. This notice dated 18-12-1989 was sent by the petitioners through their Advocate Shri N.S. Bade and it was addressed to the District Town Planning Officer, Buldhana. Through this notice, the petitioners expressed that since 10 years had lapsed and no steps towards acquisition were taken by the respondents in any manner including by respondent No. 5, the petitioners thereby offered respondents to purchase the same and to take appropriate steps within the stipulated time in accordance with the section else same be released from acquisition or be de-reserved in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The contention of the petitioner is that in spite of the service of this notice on the District Town Planning Officer i.e. respondent No. 2, no appropriate steps were taken by any of the respondents. Petitioners further pointed out that a copy of this notice was also forwarded to the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Chikhali i.e. respondent No. 5 for information, which was received by respondent No. 5 on 19-12-1989. Shri Najbile, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the set of facts and circumstances contended that in spite of the notice having been served on respondent No. 5, no steps were taken within six months of the receipt of that notice by respondent Nos. 2 and 5 and therefore, in any case the reservation could be declared to have been lapsed and it needed to be de-reserved and returned b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document