Important Point - It is trite that failure of authorities to take steps which result in actual commencement of acquisition of land cannot be permitted to defeat the purpose and object of the scheme of acquisition under the MRTP Act.

M.S. KARNIK, J.

1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner in this Petition prays for issuance of appropriate writ, order, direction to the respondents to de-reserve plot bearing No. CTS 339 1/A – A/B at Ashta, Taluka – Walwa, District Sangli (hereinafter referred to as the said plot for short).

3. The petitioner contends that he is the owner of the said plot. The said plot was reserved at No. 54 for civil and cultural centre by Maharashtra Town Development and Public Health Department. The development plan was sanctioned by respondent No. 1-State Government on 30.06.1982. Respondent No. 3-Ashta Municipal Council passed a resolution on 31.10.1994 cancelling the reservation No. 54 over the said plot. The reason cited was lack of adequate funds and therefore, resolution to cancel reservation No. 54 was passed. The respondent No. 1 however did not take a decision on the said resolution.

4. No steps were taken by the respondents to acquire the said plot under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for short) or under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as L.A. Act for short) within a period of 10 years from the coming into force of the sanctioned development plan. The petitioner served a purchase notice under Section 127 of the said Act on 09.09.1996. The respondents thereafter also took no steps to acquire the said plot within 6 months from the date of the service of the purchase notice and therefore, the petitioner contends that the said plot is released from reservation due to lapsing as contemplated in Section 127 of the said Act.

5. Respondent No. 3, in response to the purchase notice, by replies dated 18.12.1996 and 04.02.1997 informed the petitioner that steps for acquisition are being taken. The petitioner sent a reminder on 24.10.1997. As the respondents failed to take requisite steps under Section 127 of the said Act, according to the petitioner, the reservation has lapsed.

6. An affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 opposing the Petition. According to the respondent No. 3, purchase notice dated 09.09.1996 is applicable to the sanctioned development plan finalised in 1982. According to the respondent No. 3, as the plan finalised in 1982 was never executed due to various reasons, they started procedure under Section 26(1) and Section 30 of the said Act on 23.01.2002 to publish draft development plan. Respondent No. 3-Council by its resolution No. 52 accorded the sanction to publish draft development plan and report under Section 26(1) of the said Act. On 20.06.2007 the said plot was proposed to be reserved for cultural central and library. The said resolution was considered necessary by the Council because of substantial growth in population.

7. The notice under Section 26(1) of the said Act was published on 21.07.2007. The petitioner objected to the proposed plan on 05.05.2007. The objection of the petitioner was rejected on 10.03.2010.

8. Respondent No. 1-State finalised the sanctioned revised development plan on 04.04.2012 and G.R. was published on 07.04.2012. The respondents therefore contend that as the purchase notice dated 09.09.1996 is in relation to the plan finalised in 1982, pursuant to the finalisation of the revised sanctioned development plan on 04.04.2012, the said purchase notice is of no consequence and ineffective.

9. It is pertinent to mention here at this stage that while objecting to the draft development plan, the petitioner by his objection dated 05.05.2007 has categorically stated that in pursuance to the issuance of the purchase notice under Section 127 of the said Act in the year 1996 as the respondents have failed to take steps, the reservation has lapsed and therefore, the said plot cannot be shown under the reservation again. This objecti