1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.

2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners seek declarations as per prayers in Clause "B" to "E" that their properties mentioned in Para No. 1 of the petition (which are referred in detail later on) as de-reserved, that the reservation of garden in development plan has been lapsed as against the petitioners regarding their properties, that their properties are free properties and can be developed by them in accordance with law and respondents cannot claim any reservation thereon, and that the orders of the respondents making the houses of the petitioners reserved for the purposes of garden be declared as null and void and illegal and further claimed to cancel the same in terms of Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the MRTP Act").

3. The City Survey Nos. [P.R. Card Nos. 6671/1, 6671/2, 6671/3, 6671/4, 6671/5 & 6, 6671/5 & 6, 6671/6, 6671/7, 6671/8, 6671/10, 6671/18, 6671/19, 6671/20, 6671/20, 6671/20, 6671/20, 6671/23, 6671/23 & 24, 6671/24 and 6671/24 with houses thereon, situated within limits of Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad, which are respectively in the names of the petitioners as per sequence of their names in the petition, as described in para No. 1 of the petition (hereinafter referred to as "the subject properties") are the properties of the petitioner's.

4. According to the petitioners they are residing in the subject properties since long and prior to them their ancestors and predecessors-in-title were residing there. The said area is densely populated area having residential locality. The petitioner's houses have been given Municipal House Numbers by respondent No. 3 Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad. The Municipal Corporation, the then Municipal Council, Aurangabad and earlier local authority have provided facilities like water supply, sewage and even drainage to the subject properties. The petitioners have either repaired, re-developed even re-constructed, either with due permission or with the knowledge of the Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad, then Municipal Council, then local body, the subject properties.

5. The petitioners have contended that as per development plan of Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad area of ' the subject propertie's was reserved for garden purpose and later on it was removed from the reservation. Subsequently again in the year 2001 it was included in the reservation for garden by publishing revised development plan dated 18. 11. 2001 which was published vide notification dated 17. 08. 2002. The town planning authority is not able to acquire the subject properties by private agreement or compulsory acquisition within 10 years of development plan. No public notices were given/issued to the petitioners and others and they were not heard. The development plan and the revised development plan appeared to be passed illegally and without following due procedure, behind back of the petitioners. The petitioners had issued notices to the respondents calling upon to consider their case for deletion of reservation of garden facility and to dereserve their houses therefrom. But they did not dereserve the same.

6. In the above circumstances the petitioners on 29. 09. 2014 issued purchase notice (Exh.F) under Section 127 of the MRTP, Act (hereinafter referred to as the purchase notice) to respondent No. 2 Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad, respondent No. 4 the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad and the Town Planning Authority of the Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad by RPAD and also said notice was given by hand to said authorities. The respondent authorities received the purchase notice on the same day, as per endorsement of the office of the respondents on the office copy of the purchase notice. The purchase notice by RPAD was served on the respondents on 30. 09.