JUDGMENT :

Sunil B. Shukre, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. The land in question was reserved for the public purpose of recreation ground. Since the land was not acquired by the Planning Authority i.e., Respondent-Municipal Corporation for a period of more than 10 years, the Petitioner served a purchase notice under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short ‘MRTP Act’) upon the Corporation. The purchase notice was issued on 25th September 2006 and it appears that it was received by the Corporation on the same day. After receipt of such purchase notice, as per the provisions contained in Section 127 of the MRTP Act, the Corporation was obligated to either acquire the land or take steps towards acquisition of the land within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the purchase notice. The period of six months expired on 25th March, 2007.

3. What we find here from the pleadings of both sides is that no steps towards acquisition of the land were taken by the Corporation before the expiry of period of six months, which period expired on 25th March, 2007. Of course, Mr. Godbole, Learned Senior Advocate submits that steps were indeed taken by the Corporation for acquisition of the subject land, when the proposal was moved by the Corporation on 20th March 2007 to the Government by making a request for issuing necessary notification for acquisition of the land by the State Government and the notification was also issued under Section 126 (2) and (4) of the MRTP Act read with Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the State Government. The date pointed to us by the learned Senior Advocate would only show that the step towards acquisition of the land as contemplated in law, which has been more clearly explained in M/S. Girnar Traders vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2011 (7) SCC 555, was not indeed taken by the Corporation. The Corporation had sent a proposal requesting the Government to acquire the land on 20th March, 2007, which was the date prior to expiry of period of six months, but this proposal not being a step towards acquisition, would not defeat the notice issued under Section 127 of the MRTP Act by the Petitioner. The Notification dated 29th August, 2008 issued by the State Government under Section 126 (2) and (4) of the MRTP, Act read with Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is however, a step towards acquisition of the land as contemplated in law. But this step having been taken after expiry of period of six months, we must say, would not adversely affect the purchase notice issued under Section 127 of the MRTP Act. That would mean that so far as the first reservation affecting the subject land is concerned, there is lapsing of it by virtue of failure of the Corporation to acquire the subject land or failure of the Corporation to take any steps towards acquisition of the land within the stipulated period of six months from the date of receipt of the purchase notice. We therefore, find no merit in the submission of learned Senior Advocate made in this regard on behalf of the Corporation.

4. There is another dimension to the dispute involved in this Petition. The Petition had been dismissed in default by this Court on 11th March, 2015 and while the Petition remained dismissed, the State Government published a revised draft development plan on 27th May, 2016 proposing to provide the land for reservation for different purpose of garden park. The Petitioner filed objection to the revised draft development plan on the ground that the reservation earlier provided had been lapsed and therefore, no further reservation could be provided by the State Government. The objection was rejected and the final revised development plan was sanctioned by the Government on 8th May, 2018 providing for reservation of the subject land for the purpose of garden park. Before sanction of the revised draft devel