JUDGMENT :

Mangesh S. Patil, J.

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties the matters are heard finally.

2. These are the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking declaration under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the M.R.T.P. Act) about the lapse of reservation. Since the facts and the law applicable to the fact situation in all these four petitions is same except the petitioners and their respective lands, all these writ petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the respective properties of the petitioners were reserved as site no.165 in the development plan of Jalgaon Municipal Corporation which was published on 10.08.2004 and which came into effect from 01.10.2004. The writ properties were reserved for playground, primary school and D.P. Road. The petitioners served first purchase notice on 09.04.2012 as contemplated under Section of the 127 of the M.R.T.P. Act and again served a second purchase notice on 05.09.2014 which was duly received by the respondent no.2-Jalgaon Municipal Corporation on 12.09.2014, even the documents were supplied to it on 10.03.2016. Still the respondents failed to take appropriate steps for acquiring the writ properties within the time stipulated under that provision and therefore the reservation stood lapsed. He would therefore submit that the petitioners' properties cannot be allowed to be put under the cloud for years together and necessary declaration for lapse of reservation should follow. He submitted that the Supreme Court as well as this Court in several judgments has given such a declaration and the same course should be followed even in these matters. He refer to and relied upon the decision in the case of Girnar Traders & Anr. V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2007) 7 SCC 555, Hasmukhrai V. Mehta V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2015) 3 SCC 154 and Jaika Vanijya Ltd. V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2013) 4 MhLJ 161.

4. Per contra, the learned A.G.P. for the respondent no.1 and the learned advocate for the respondent no.2 referring to the affidavit in replies filed by the Assistant Director of Town Planning, Jalgaon and the Commissioner of respondent no.2-Jalgaon City Municipal Corporation vehemently submitted that there is no apparent dispute about the facts. However, notice which is issued firstly on 09.04.2012 and even the second notice dated 05.09.2014 are premature in as much as those have been issued even before expiry of the statutory period of ten years available with the developing authority to acquire the properties. When the statute has laid down a specific period, any attempt to invoke the provisions of the M.R.T.P. Act by issuing a notice before expiry of period of ten years is illegal. For this reason alone, the declaration as claimed by the petitioners cannot be granted.

5. The learned advocate for the respondent no.2 further submitted that assuming that the communication dated 10.03.2016 sent on behalf of the petitioners is treated as a notice under Section 127 of the M.R.T.P. Act, still it suffers from couple of infirmities. Firstly, on the ground that the person who has sent this communication is admittedly not the owner of the property and also cannot be held to be a person having interest in the writ properties. Section 127 contemplates that the purchase notice should be issued by the owner of the property or a person having interest therein. When the person who has sent this communication is not the person who is either the owner or a person having interest within the meaning of that phrase, the notice is illegal. Secondly, to the learned advocate for the respondent no.2, if it is to be treated as a notice under Section 127 of the M.R.T.P. Act, it is dated 10.03.2016 and by that time an amendment was effected to Section 127 of the M.R.T.P. Act and t