Oral Judgment: (Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.)

1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing.

2. The petitioners claim to be the owners of land bearing No.197/1 situate at Kupwad City, District Sangli (for convenience, “the said plot”). In this petition, the petitioners have prayed for declaration that the reservation shown on the said plot vide Reservation No.328 in the sanctioned development plan, published in the year 1985 in respect of Kupwad City has lapsed and that the petitioners are entitled to develop the portion of the said plot. The petitioners have further prayed that respondent 3

i.e. the Town Planner, Sangli-Miraj-Kupwad City Municipal Corporation, be directed to sanction the development/building plan submitted by the petitioners on 9/1/2008. Affidavit in reply has been filed by Sadhana Pradeep Naik, Deputy Director of Town Planning, Pune Division, Pune and also by Shrirang B. Patil, Deputy Commissioner, Miraj Division, Sangli-Miraj-Kupwad Municipal Corporation.

3. It is necessary to state the facts in brief as are evident from the affidavit of Sadhana P. Naik, Deputy Director of Town Planning, Pune Division, Pune and affidavit of Shrirang B. Patil, Deputy Commissioner, Miraj Division, Sangli-Miraj-Kupwad Municipal Corporation. Regional Plan for Sangli-Miraj Region has been sanctioned by the Government of Maharashtra vide its resolution dated 15/3/1985. In the layout plan, land Survey No.197 (part) of Kupwad was reserved for playground along with other lands. The Government of Maharashtra vide resolution dated 9/2/1998 merged the areas of Sangli, Miraj and Kupwad Municipal Councils and established Sangli, Miraj and Kupwad City Municipal Corporation, respondent 2 herein. Respondent 2 published revised draft development plan under section 26(1) of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, “the MRTP Act”) for the entire area falling in its jurisdiction on 4/3/2005. In the said published revised draft development plan, land Survey No.197 (part) of Kupwad was proposed to be reserved for playground along with other lands.

4. In his affidavit, Shrirang B. Patil, Deputy Commissioner Miraj Division - respondent 2, has stated that on 13/8/2007 the petitioner addressed a purchase notice through his advocate under section 127 of the MRTP Act to respondent 2. Under section 127 of the MRTP Act, if any land reserved for any purpose specified in any plan under this Act is not acquired by agreement within ten years from the date on which a final regional Plan, or final Development Plan comes into force or if proceedings for the acquisition of such land under this Act or under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are not commenced within such period, the owner or any person interested in the land may serve notice on the Planning Authority, Development Authority or as the case may be, Appropriate Authority to that

effect; and 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 have lapsed, and thereupon, the land shall be deemed to be released from such reservation and shall become available to the owner for the purpose of development as otherwise, permissible in the case of adjacent land under the relevant plan.

5. In his affidavit, Mr. Patil has stated that since in the revised development plan, Survey No.197/1 is shown as reserved for playground, the reservation has still continued. The question is whether if the land is released from reservation as a consequence of purchase notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, the Planning Authority is entitled to again reserve it in the revised development plan for public purpose and contend that the reservation has continued and deny the owner the right which had accrued to him to develop it.

6. In Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. & Ors., (2003) 2 SCC 111), the Supreme Co