D. D. SINHA, J. :- Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of Shri Bhide, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Jog, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3, and Shri Dharaskar, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2.

2. Shri Bhide, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that petitioner is owner of land bearing Survey No.1, admeasuring 73 ares at Mouza Khel Chatari, Jalgaon Jamod. Out of the said land, land admeasuring 700 square metres of plot No. 5/2/22 was reserved for extension of dispensary in the development plan of city of Jalgaon Jamod of the year 1976. At the relevant time, Siddheshwar, father of the petitioner, in whose name land was, was alive and had served notice dated 22-4-2002 under section 1"27 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 on the Planning Authority since period of more than ten years was lapsed, the Planning Authority was called upon to acquire the land within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the said notice. It is contended that since Planning Authority failed to acquire land in question or initiate proceedings for acquisition before expiry of period of six months from the date of service of notice dated 22-4-2002, land in question shall be deemed to have been released from the reservation in view of section 127 of the MRTP Act. It is submitted that this aspect is not disputed by the Director of Town Planning, which is evident from his order dated 2-6-2005.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submits that land in question is not released by the concerned Authority in favour of the petitioner only on the ground that under the revised development plan, same is again reserved for shopping complex. It is contended that right of the petitioner to get the land released from reservation after lapse of period of ten years and expiry of period of six months from the date of service of notice as contemplated under section 127 of the MRTP Act cannot be taken away merely because in the revised development plan, land is again shown to have been reserved for construction of shops. It is submitted that this issue is concluded by the decision of this Court in Kishore Gopalrao Bapat and others vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2005(4) Mh.L.J. 466. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order dated 26-2005 passed by the Director of Town Planning may be quashed and set aside and" land of the petitioner may be released from reservation and made available for the purpose of development as otherwise permissible in the case of adjacent land under the relevant Development Plan.

4. Mrs. Jog, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 and 3, has not disputed that in the order dated 2-6-2005 passed by the Director of Town Planning, the reasons given for not releasing the land of the petitioner in spite of the fact that period of ten years has been lapsed and no steps were taken to acquire the land within six months from the date of receipt of service dated 224-2002 is that land in question is again reserved for construction of shops in the revised development plan, which came into effect in the year 2005.

5. Shri Dharaskar, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2, submits that it is no doubt true that land in question was initially reserved for extension of dispensary. However, in the revised development plan, which came into force on 19-12-2005, land in question is reserved for construction of shops and, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to get the land in question released from reservation merely because ten years' period has been lapsed and the Planning Authority could not acquire the land within a period of six months from the date of receipt of notice dated 22-4-2002 issued by the father of the petitioner under the provisions of section 127 of the MRTP Act.

6. We have considered the contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties. The following facts are not in dispute:

The land ad