The main legal point established in the judgment is that the reservation on the land would lapse if the Planning Authority failed to take steps within the specified period, and acquisition would only commence when the State Government takes steps for acquisition of land by publication of declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

JUDGMENT :

KAMAL KHATA, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Patankar waives service for respondent Nos. 2 and 4. Mrs. Thakur, waives service for respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 5.

2. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus to declare that the Reservation No. 485 on Final Plot No. 131/1 and 131/2 in City Survey No. 352 & 352A has lapsed and consequently stand released from reservation since no steps have been taken by the concerned authorities for more than twenty years either for purchase or for acquisition of land under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (“the MRTP Act”) and within a period of 12 months from the date of Purchase notice dated 8th July 2015 as contemplated under the Act.

BRIEF FACTS:

3. The Petitioners are owners and in possession of the land bearing CTS No. 352 & 352 A, Final Plot No. 131/1, 131/2 I TPS-1 [Final], (bearing Reservation No. 485 “Parking”) admeasuring 800 sq. meters (referred to as “the Plot” for short) situated within the jurisdiction of Nashik Municipal Corporation. It is stated that though the Plot was reserved for public parking since 1996 no steps were taken for its acquisition. On 8th July 2015, the Petitioners issued a Purchase notice under section 127 of the MRTP Act to acquire the plot on payment of compensation as per “The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013”. In its response to such notice dated 24th July 2015 the Respondent-Municipal Corporation stated that the period would only commence upon submission of the Petitioners documents. Correspondence ensued between the Petitioners and the Municipal Corporation regarding production of documents of title by the Petitioners. On 12th July 2016 the Petitioners intimated the Respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5 that the reservation had lapsed by operation of law namely the provisions of Section 127 of the MRTP Act, since the steps as contemplated under the act were not taken by the Respondents. The Petitioners contend that by an application under the Right to Information Act 2005, the Petitioners discovered that the proposal for the land acquisition bearing Land Acquisition Proposal Case No. 3 of 2000 was pending before the Dy. Collector (Land Acquisition) No. 2 for measurement of the Plot. Being aggrieved by the Respondents’ action purporting to continue the reservation on the Petitioner’s Plot, the Petitioners have filed this Petition on 25th October 2016.

4. The Respondent No. 1 in their reply affidavit contend that, Revised Draft Development Plan for Nashik Municipal Corporation under section 26 of the Act was published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette on 4th June 2015 which has been partly sanctioned vide Notification No. TPS-1116/CR-140/1/2016/UD-9 dated 9th January 2017 under Section 31 of the MRTP Act and is in force with effect from 9th February 2017. It is stated that by an amendment the words “twelve months” were substituted by “twenty – four months” with effect from 29th August 2015 consequently, the period to take steps pursuant to the notice was to expire on 7th July 2017. It is further stated that pursuant to the notification dated 9th January 2017 issued under section 31 of the MRTP Act, by virtue of the revised Development Plan the Plot is again reserved for “Public Amenity” under reservation site No. 136 (Original Site No. 485) with effect from 9th February 2017.

5. Mr. Shrishailya Deshmukh learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Santu Sukhdeo Jaibhave vs Nashik Municipal Corporation, (2023) 2 BCR 469 : 2022 SCC Online Bom 5273 of which one of us (Kamal Khata, J.) was a member, to contend that the Development plan or revised development plan becomes final only after requisite procedure prescribed in Chapter III is followed. It is urged that this is a case in which a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acq