The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 49 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, emphasizing the obligation of the Appropriate Authority to acquire the land and the consequences of failing to make an application within the specified period.

S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

1. Rule. The respondents in both the petitions waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petitions are taken up for final disposal. Heard.

2. By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner in the respective petitions have prayed for the following relief:-

In Writ Petition No.2071 of 2012:

“(b) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare that the reservation imposed on the land bearing Gat No.59 (Part) and Survey No.93 (Part) and 87/1 (Part) admeasuring 12744 sq. yards of village ChitalsarManpada, Thane under M.R.T.P. Act, 1966 is deemed to have been lapsed and thereupon the said lands are deemed to have been released from such reservations and are available to the Petitioners for the purpose of development otherwise permissible in the case of the adjacent land under the Development Plan [save and except land] allegedly covered by Respondent No.6;”

In Writ Petition No.2126 of 2012:

“(b) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare that the reservation imposed on the land bearing Gat No.59/22 (Part), 59/23 (Part) and 59 (Part) Survey Nos.49/1, 49/2, 88/1, 2, 4 and 77/1, 2 measuring 32488 sq. yards and 21521 sq. yards as per Two Purchase deeds totally admeasuring 54009 sq. yards excluding land already taken for roads by Respondent No.2 in village Chitalsar-Manpada, Thane under M.R.T.P. Act, 1966 is deemed to have been lapsed and thereupon the said lands are deemed to have been released from such reservations and are available to the Petitioners for the purpose of development otherwise permissible in the case of the adjacent land under the Development Plan;”

3. To our mind, though there are two petitions, the facts in both are more or less identical and the legal issue common. They can be conveniently disposed of by this common Judgment.

4. We take the facts from Civil Writ Petition No.2071 of 2012. The petitioner before this Court is one M/s. Tolani Brothers who claims to be a firm and suing through its Constituted Attorney Mr. N. Tolani. It says that it is the owner of one parcel of land at village Chitalsar-Manpada, Thane, bearing Gat No.59 (Part) and Survey No.93 (Part) and 87/1 (Part) and admeasuring 12744 square yards (for brevity’s sake hereinafter referred to as “the said property”).

5. The petitioner along with its sister concern M/s. Eastern Machinery had filed a writ petition being Civil Writ Petition No.3343 of 2010 in this Court seeking dereservation of lands and claiming other reliefs, and what transpired during the course of that petition is then set out in para 4. There is another writ petition mentioned in that paragraph. The sum total of all this was that the petitions were withdrawn with liberty to file two separate writ petitions. Thereafter, what is informed to this Court and para 5 onwards is that the petitioners acquired said property under a Sale Deed dated 20-8-1962. It is then stated as to how they obtained the physical possession as well. The 1 st respondent to this petition is the Secretary in the Department of Urban Development, Government of Maharashtra and the 2nd respondent is the Thane Municipal Corporation whereas respondent No.3 is the Collector, District Thane. The respondent No.4 is the Commissioner of Police, Thane and the 5th respondent is the Director, Town Planning, Government of Maharashtra. The 6th respondent to this petition is a private party and stated to be sued because she is claiming rights over a portion of the land which is the subject-matter of Civil Writ Petition No.2071 of 2012. It is claimed that the development plan for the City of Thane was sanctioned in the year 1999 and the said property was reserved for a park, police station and other reservations such as road expansion. The petitioner states that it raised certain objections but eventually it found that these reservations are in place. They would now be in place for 10 years. All the plans of the petitioner to enjoy its rights in the property