The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, specifically regarding the vesting of properties in the planning authority, entitlement to declaration regarding lapsing of reservation, and authority to develop reserved plots.

JUDGMENT

Mangesh S. Patil, J. - Heard both sides. Rule in both the petitions, made returnable forthwith. Learned AGP waives service for the respondent - State and learned Advocate Mr. Bedre waives service for the respondent - Corporation. At the joint request of the parties, the petitions are heard finally.

2. These petitions have been filed by the same trust for different reliefs on the same set of facts.

3. In writ petition no. 9934 of 2016, the petitioner trust claiming to be the owner of the final plot nos. 193 and 195 in the development plan of the respondent - municipal corporation is seeking variation and modification of the town planning scheme sanctioned on 04-01-1985 in respect of those two plots by following procedure under section 39 read with section 92 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 ('MRTP Act'), pursuant to the order passed by the learned Minister of the State Urban Development Department dated 27-09-1988 in writ petition no. 9934 of 2016.

4. In writ petition no. 7986 of 2017, the petitioner trust is seeking a declaration regarding lapsing of the reservation on the same two final plot nos. 193 and 195 under the provisions of section 127 of the MRTP Act and also seeking a declaration that it is entitled to develop the plots for the purpose for which those are reserved.

5. Learned advocate Ms. Talekar for the petitioner trust would submit that a town planning scheme no. 4 for Ahmednagar city was sanctioned on 04-01-1985 inter alia declaring that full amount of compensation shall be payable under section 72(3)(vi) of the MRTP Act. The petitioner - trust's plots were reserved for different public purposes. An area of 11471.60 Square Meter from plot no. 195 and 39402.10 Square Meter from plot no. 193 were reserved for school and playground and playground, respectively.

She would submit that by issuing government resolution under section 154 of the MRTP Act, the land owners themselves were permitted to develop such reservations for the purpose for which those were put under the town planning scheme.

6. Ms. Talekar would submit that since the petitioner trust was in need of both these plots under reservation for upkeep of the masjid, it applied to the Minister. By the order dated 17-09-1998, the learned Minister rejected its request to remove the reservation, however, permitted it to develop the property for the purpose under reservation and issued direction to the respondent - municipal council, as it then was, for taking steps under section 91 of the MRTP Act.

7. Pursuant to such an order, the petitioner trust moved the respondent - corporation on 11-03-1999 but it did not take any decision, and, therefore, a direction was required to be solicited from this Court. It thereafter rejected the petitioner's representation on the ground that by virtue of section 88 of the MRTP Act, the plots reserved under the scheme vested in the respondent corporation absolutely. This was the order passed on 09-05-2007 but it was never communicated to the petitioner trust. She would submit that first time the fact was revealed to the petitioner trust when the respondent corporation filed its affidavit in reply in writ petition no. 7986 of 2017.

8. Ms. Talekar would then submit that the respondent corporation also made an attempt to mutate its name in the property card of the plot nos. 193 and 195 but the District Superintendent of Land Records by the order dated 02-12-2011 rejected the respondent corporation's appeal and the name of the petitioner trust continued to appear in the property card.

9. Ms. Talekhar would then submit that the respondent municipal corporation is illegally refusing to acquire the plots by not paying any compensation or even a request for grant of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) was turned down under a spacious plea that already some portion of the plots are affected while sanctioning lay-out. She would submit that a similarly placed property owner - Mr. Shivajirao Miskin under the same schem