S.B. Shukre, J.

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents-authorities to treat his land as being free from the reservation following lapsing of the reservation under the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as MRTP Act for short).

3. The petitioner is the owner of land bearing survey No. 103/12/ 1D/1A situated at Pandharpur, within the limits of Municipal Council Pandharpur. This property has been reserved with effect from 3.3.1979 under reserved site No. 84 for the purpose of postal department staff quarters. The respondent no. 3 initiated the process of acquisition of the said land on 18.6.1991 and even a notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 came to be issued. However, these proceedings could not be completed within two years and, therefore, the acquisition process resulted in it's lapsing by operation of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

4. As the respondents did not acquire the land almost for 23 years, the petitioner through his advocate issued a notice on 10.12.2002 as per the provisions of Section 127 of M.R.T.P. Act calling upon the respondents to acquire the land within six months from the receipt of the notice. The notice was duly received by the respondents-authorities. But, neither the land was acquired nor any steps for its acquisition were initiated. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioner that by operation of law, the reservation on the subject land has come to an end and has been lapsed resulting into the land becoming a free hold property.

5. After the issuance of notice under Section 127 of M.R.T.P. Act, the subject land, under revised development plan, was reserved vide reservation no. 91 for the purpose of staff quarters of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Notification in this regard was issued on 11.7.2002. According to the petitioner, placing of the subject land under reservation in revised development plan, which came into effect subsequent to lapse of period of six months from the date of receipt of notice under Section 127 by the respondents-authorities would not affect the substantial right accrued in his favour as a consequence of no steps having been taken by the respondent-authorities for acquisition of the subject land within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the notice.

6. The respondent no. 3, Municipal Council, Pandharpur, and respondent no. 7, B.S.N.L., in their affidavits in reply have not disputed the ownership of the petitioner in respect of the subject land. Respondent no. 3 has also not disputed the receipt of the notice issued by the petitioner under Section 127 of the M.R.T.P. Act. However, they have disputed accrual of right to the petitioner under Section 127 of M.R.T.P. Act as, according to them, the land has been once again reserved for the purpose of B.S.N.L. staff quarters under the new revised plan.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respective respondents and the learned A.G.P.

8. According to learned counsel for petitioner, once the right has arisen in favour of the petitioner for seeking a declaration of deemed lapsing of reservation over his land by operation of Section 127 of M.R.T.P. Act, such right cannot be taken away even if the land is again reserved either for the same purpose or any other purpose under a revised development plan. For this submission, he places his reliance upon the case of Suresh Laxminarayan Jaiswal v. State of Maharashtra & ors., reported in 2007(6) Bom.C.R. 229 decided by the Division Bench of this Court.

9. According to learned counsel for respondent no. 3, Municipal Council, and learned AGP since the subject land has been reserved for another purpose under the revised development plan the benefit of Section 127 of M.R.T.P. Act cannot be given to the petitioner.

10. We would have accepted the ar