Ranjit More, J.

The petitioners claim to be the owners of final plot No.481, Town Planning Scheme No.1 at Karad admeasuring about 1721.16 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the said land”). The respondent No.1 is Karad Municipal Council established under the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the Director, Town Planning and State of Maharashtra respectively.

2. The petitioners have approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking declaration that the reservation/designation bearing No.46 on the said land in the sanctioned development plan of the respondent No.1-Karad Municipal Council has lapsed and the said property is deemed to have been released from the said reservation/designation and the same is become available for development to the petitioners.

3. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows :

The State Government sanctioned the first revised development plan of Karad Municipal Council on 1st December, 1983, in which, the said land was reserved as reservation site No.46 for Municipal purposes. This plan came into force on 1st February, 1984. On 27th April, 2000, the second revised draft development plan of Karad Municipal Council was published, in which, only Eastern 1/3 portion of land was proposed to be reserved for shopping centre vide reservation No.62, whereas, the Western 2/3rd portion was proposed to be dropped from reservation. On 20th October, 2006, the Karad Municipal Council – Planning Authority submitted second revised draft development plan to the Government under Section 30 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short the “MRTP Act”). On 21st October, 2009, the petitioners applied for a development/building permission under sections 44 and 45 of the MRTP Act. On 13th November, 2009, the said permission was rejected by the Karad Municipal Council, only on the ground that part of the land was reserved for shopping centre in the second revised draft development plan which was yet to be sanctioned. The petitioners thereafter on 5th March, 2010 issued composite notice to the respondent No.1 and respondent Nos.2 and 3 under sections 127 and 49 of the MRTP Act. There is no dispute that this notice was served by hand-delivery on both the above said authorities and the said authorities have acknowledged the receipt of the said notice on the very same day.

4. Since the statutory period of one year as provided under Section 127 of the MRTP Act expired on 4th March, 2011 and no notification under Section 126 of the MRTP was issued, the present petition came to be filed on 22nd March, 2011, for the reliefs stated hereinabove.

5. We also feel it necessary to make a reference to the facts mentioned herein below which occurred during the pendency of the above petition.

On 1st June, 2011, the Collector-Satara issued notification under Section 126(4) of the MRTP Act to acquire the said land. On 4th April, 2012, the State Government sanctioned the second revised draft development plan but reservation No.62 was kept in excluded portion. On 7th October, 2016, the Government sanctioned the excluded portion of the second revised development plan and instead of only 1/3rd Eastern portion being reserved/designated as site No.62 for multipurpose hall and shopping centre, the said site No.62 was re-designated for Municipal purposes in respect of the entire subject land. Thus, effectively, the original reservation No.46 was completely reinstated. The petitioners, thereafter, with the leave of the Court, amended the petition and challenged the reservation in second revised development plan qua the said land.

6. Mr. Godbole, learned counsel for the petitioners, took us through the petition, other relevant documents annexed thereto and compilation of additional documents and submitted that since separate cause of actions accrued to the petitioners i.e.