The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, and its application to the issuance of a purchase notice after the publication of a revised development plan.

JUDGMENT :

M.W. Chandwani, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Whether the legal fiction of lapsing of reservation provided under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) would apply in a case where a purchase notice under Section 127 of the Act is given after statutory period of ten years from the final development plan, but before expiry of ten years from the date of revised development plan, is a question raised in this petition.

3. The petitioners are the owners of field bearing Survey Nos. 500, 501, 502 (Old Survey No.297) at Mouza Mohpa, Tahsil Kalmeshwar, District Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as “the said land” for short). In development plan for Mohpa, Tahsil Kalmeshwar, District Nagpur, published on 20/09/1973, the said land was reserved for weekly market and shops vide reservation No.TPS-2469/61163-W-II, Mohpa. No steps were taken by respondent No.4 to acquire the said land under the provisions of the Act. Vide notification dated 31/03/2012, the revised development plan for Mohpa was published under Section 38 of the Act. Even in the said revised development plan, reservation on the said land was kept intact. Since no steps were taken for acquisition of the said land, the petitioners on 30/12/2015 issued purchase notice to the respondents under Section 127 of the Act. Even after expiry of statutory period of twenty four months provided under Section 127 of the Act, no steps have been taken by respondent no.4 to acquire the said land. Rather, respondent No.4 passed a resolution resolving that the said land is not required for weekly market and shops as there is sufficient alternate place. In spite of that no step is taken by either of the respondents for deletion of said reservation. Hence, the present petition came to be filed for invoking legal fiction of deemed lapsing of reservation under Section 127 of the Act.

4. In reply, respondent No.3 contended that the final development plan was under revisions. It was revised u/s 38 of the Act and published on 31/03/2012. In revised development plan, the reservation over the said land is kept continue for market and shopping complex. The period of ten years after revised development plan came into force, is yet to be expired. In view of the provisions of Section 127 of the Act, the purchase notice dated 30/12/2015 is premature. Initially, respondent No.4 had passed the resolution not to acquire the said land, the said resolution is reviewed and now respondent No.4 is going to develop the said land as shopping complex.

5. Learned Counsel Mr. S.S. Deshpande for the petitioners would submit that the said land is reserved for weekly market and shops since 1973 and the respondents having failed to take any steps almost for more than 40 years, cannot deprive the petitioners from getting the said land de-reserved from the reservation under the development plan of respondent No.4. No acquisition proceedings have been initiated by the respondents for a considerable period of 40 years. The purchase notice has been issued to respondent No.3 on 30/12/2015. According to him, if they fail to take any step for acquisition of the said land within 24 months from the date of service of purchase notice, the consequences would be, the said land shall be deemed to be released from such reservation and will be available to the owner for the purpose of development as permissible in the case of adjacent land under the relevant plan.

6. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently submits that more than ten years have been expired since 1973 when final development plan was published by respondent No.4 for the city of Mohpa. According to him, the right to property is a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The respondents cannot withheld the property of the petitioners under the garb of reservation. On one ha