The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a proper notice under section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, to release land from reservation, emphasizing the need for clear description of the land and the authority's obligation to acquire or compulsorily purchase the reserved land.

Naresh Patil, J.

The petitioners seek direction to the respondents to forthwith release the land bearing Gat No.370, Hissa No.1 situated at taluka-Pen, district-Raigad from reservation No.7 (Garden).

2. It is the contention of the petitioners that they are owners of the land situated within the limits of the Pen Municipal Council. The said land admeasures 04207 + 0040 R. In the development plan, which came into force on 3rd March 1989, the said land was reserved by the municipal council for the purpose of garden as reservation No.7. The petitioners contend that on 2nd February 2009, a notice was issued under section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (“Act of 1966” for short). It is stated that the said notice was received by respondent No.3. In spite of receipt of notice, no steps were taken by respondent No.2. The petitioners claimed to have issued another notice to respondent No.1 on 11th March 2010 and requested for issuance of notification under section 127(2) of the Act of 1966. The petitioners state that the respondents did not take any action for purchasing the petitioners' land in terms of notice issued under section 127 of the Act of 1966.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of settled position of law, after receipt of notice under section 127 of the Act of 1966 if the State fails to take proper action then the subject reservation would stand lapsed. The learned counsel submits that in the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No.3Council a stand is taken that the said notice is not in compliance with the provisions of section 127 of the said Act. Learned counsel submits that a technical view need not be taken which would frustrate the cause of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submits that for claiming relief of lapsing of reservation, a proper and valid notice issued under section 127 is essential requirement of law. In the present case, the said notice does not conform to the basic requirements. Hence such a notice cannot be a basis for claiming relief of lapsing of reservation. Learned counsel further submits that in the development plan of 1989 the petitioners' land was reserved for garden. In a meeting, dated 4th January 1997, it was resolved to develop the said plot by entering into agreement with the owner of the said land. The petitioners by their application dated 10th May 2000 informed respondent No.3 that they are willing to accept the compensation at the market rate and hand over the possession of the said land or they be provided alternate plot within the municipal council area. It is submitted that vide letter dated 21st July 2000, respondent No.3 requested the petitioners to hand over possession of the said land as the petitioners had agreed to accept the compensation at the market rate. The total amount towards valuation was determined at Rs.34,69,695/. The municipal council requested the petitioners to transfer the said land at the market rate. However, the petitioners refused to transfer the said land. In a general body meeting held on 23rd January 2008 it was resolved to acquire the said land through the Collector, Raigad. Accordingly, intimation was given to Deputy Director, Town Planning, Kokan Division by a letter dated 24th January 2001. By letter dated 16th July 2008 a request was also made to the Collector, Raigad for acquiring the said land. By communication dated 11th August 2008, the office of the Collector informed respondent No.3 that the proposal submitted was incomplete and further informed to submit the proposal after complying with various compliances referred to in the said letter. Learned counsel relied upon the affidavit sworn by the Chief Officer of respondent No.3Council n 24th August 2011.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied upon judgments of Supreme Court in the cases of Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 (7) SCC 555; Beohar Rajendra Sinha v. State