JUDGMENT :

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

The present reference is on account of the order dated 4th August, 2017 passed by a Division Bench of this Court and the question for consideration is found in paragraph 15 of the said order. The said question reads as under :-

"Whether the provision of Sub-Section 1 of Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 as amended, which enlarges the period of 12 months to 24 months for a Planning / Development / Appropriate Authority to take effective steps for acquisition of the reserved land would apply to a notice under Sub-Section 1 of Section 127 served on the concerned Authority before the amended provisions came into force?"

2. Sub-Section (1) of Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 prior to its amendment on 29th August 2015 read as under :-

"If any land reserved, allotted or designated for any purpose specified in any plan under this Act is not acquired by agreement within ten years from the date on which a final Regional Plan, or final Development Plan comes into force or if a declaration under sub-section (2) or (4) of section 126 is not published in the Official Gazette within such period, the owner or any person interested in the land may serve notice, along with the documents showing his title or interest in the said land, on the Planning Authority, the Development Authority or, as the case may be, the Appropriate Authority to that effect; and if within twelve months from the date of the service of such notice, the land is not acquired or no steps as aforesaid are commenced for its acquisition, the reservation, allotment or designation shall be deemed to have lapsed, and thereupon, the land shall be deemed to be released from such reservation, allotment or designation and shall become available to the owner for the purpose of development as otherwise, permissible in the case of adjacent land under the relevant plan".

3. By virtue of the amendment the words 'twelve months' were replaced by the words 'twenty-four months'.

4. The reference arose on account of the fact that in the decision reported as Shantaram Shankar Jamsandekar & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2015) 1 MhLJ 719 with reference to the fact that the development plan came into effect on 18.02.1999 and purchase notice was served on 11.03.2010 but land not being acquired within twelve months the action was brought seeking a declaration that the subject land was free to be used and the defence taken was that on the petitioner applying from removing the land from the reservation the general body of the third respondent passed a resolution on 20.01.2005 to remove the reservation and pursuant thereto action was taken under Section 37 of the Act. That the first respondent therein wrote to the third respondent therein concerning utilization of the land if the development plan was modified. That in view of said subsequent event the question of the land being free from the rigors of the development plan did not arise, the Division Bench held that the right accruing to the petitioner under Section 127 were independent and could not be construed as having any relation to the action under Section 37. Said decision was read by another Division Bench in the decision reported as Vishnu Vasant Developers, DIGRAS & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2017) 2 MhLJ 284 and another Division Bench in the judgment reported as Nagina Hakimuddin Akolawala vs. State of Maharashtra, 2017 SCCOnLineBombay 140 to lay down the proposition that the amendment was prospective and vested right accrued on the date when the notice contemplated by Section 127 was served. Another Division Bench deciding a batch of Writ Petitions, lead matter being W.P. No. 3954/2006 Harendra Bhikubhai Adhyaru & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. by way of obiter took a contra view.

5. It is settled beyond pale of controversy that all laws are presumed to be prospective unless the legislature unequivocally expresses its int