Inaction within the prescribed period led to the lapse of the reservation, and the illegal inclusion of lands in the Development Plan led to the quashing of the acquisition proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Nitin Jamdar, J. - By this Petition, the Petitioners are challenging the Notification dated 20 June 2002 issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Akola, declaring the proposed acquisition of the lands owned by the Petitioners. The Petitioner has also sought a declaration that reservation No. 6 declared by Respondent No. 7 - Municipal Council Patur has lapsed.

2. It is a case of the Petitioners that the Petitioners are owners of Survey No. 244 (New 245) at Patur, District Akola. The Respondent No. 7 - Municipal Council Patur was the Planning Authority for the city of Patur as per the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short the "Act of 1966'). The Respondent No. 7 - Municipal Council Patur prepared a draft Development Plan, and lands of the Petitioners were reserved for extension of secondary school. The Development Plan was approved in the year 1976. Thereafter, Petitioner No. 3 issued a notice to Respondent No. 7 -Planning Authority that no acquisition has taken place for over 20 years in the reserved land and called upon Respondent No. 7 -Planning Authority to take necessary action.

3. According to the Petitioners, since no steps were taken within the period prescribed under Section 127 of the Act of 1966, the reservation has lapsed.

4. Respondent No. 8 also filed a Petition directing that the lands be acquired since it was reserved for extension of secondary school.

5. The Petitioners amended the Writ Petition and incorporated a challenge on the ground that the Petitioners' lands do not fall within the jurisdiction of Municipal Council Patur, and it was submitted that the entire action of including the lands of the Petitioners, i.e. Survey Nos. 244 (Part), 246 (Part) and 247 (Part) in the Development Plan of Municipal Council, Patur itself illegal and, therefore, no acquisition proceedings in furtherance of this reservation can be taken.

6. The amendment was carried out on 29 October 2018. In this amendment, the Petitioners have placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 19 October 2018 in the Writ Petition No. 1462/2017, wherein the Division Bench had declared the area which comprised the lands of the Petitioners do not fall within the jurisdiction of Municipal Council Patur, but the limit of Shirla Gram Panchayat and had restrained the Municipal Council Patur from recovering taxes.

7. To this amendment reply affidavit was filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 6 on 07 January 2020, wherein this position was accepted. However, it was only stated that the Review Application is filed in respect of the order dated 19 October 2018.

8. Thereafter, when the Petition came up on Board on 21 January 2021 except the learned AGP, none was present for the Respondents, and thereupon following order came to be passed:

"Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner.

2. None appears for the Respondent Municipal Council.

3. As regards Writ Petition No. 5040 of 2004, the Petitioner who is the owner of the land specified in the petition, is aggrieved by the notification dated 20 June2002 issued by Respondent No.5-The Special Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the proposed acquisition of the Petitioner's land on the ground that they have been reserved as per Reservation No. 6 declared by the Respondent No.7-Municipal Council, Patur.

4. On 29 October 2018, the Division Bench of this Court passed the following order:

"1. Petitioners have challenged preparation of a development plan by respondent No.7 by treating their village Jirayat Patur as the part of respondent No. 7.

2. In Writ petition No.1462 of 2017 decided on 19.10.208, Division Bench of this Court has found that in absence of final notification under Section 6 of Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayat and Industrial Township Act 1965, Jirayat Patur cannot become part of respondent No. 6.

3. If this judgment is accepted, petitioner is bound to succeed.

4. Judgment is delivered very recently

5. Hence, we allow amendment.

6. Necessary a