JUDGMENT :

Sunil B. Shukre, J.

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

2. The only issue involved in this petition is whether the Purchase Notice issued by the petitioners, under Section 127(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, of 16th September 2013 is valid or not. The incidental question arising from the main question is that if purchase notice is considered to be valid, would it lead to deemed de-reservation of the land in question in view of the provisions made in Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, (“MRTP Act”, for short), or would it be affected by the sanction of revised development plan subsequent to issuance of the purchase notice.

3. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, even though the Purchase Notice dated 16th September 2013 was issued after publication of draft revised development plan on 28th March 2013, the purchase notice was valid and as no steps for acquisition of the land within the prescribed period of one year were taken by the respondent-Municipal Corporation, there was dereservation of the land in question by deeming fiction. He relies upon the view taken in this regard in the recent judgment delivered in the case of Santu Sukhdeo Jaibhave and Ors. Vs. Nashik Municipal Corporation and Ors, along with connected matters, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 5273. He also relies upon the case of Balkrishna Jagannath Lad Vs. Indian Postal Department, Mumbai and Ors., 2015(5) Mh.L.J. 899.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent-Municipal Corporation submits that since the purchase notice in the present case was issued after publication of a draft revised development plan and as publication of draft revised development plan shows the intention of the Municipal Corporation to continue the public purpose, it would have to be said that the petitioners never acquired any indefeasible right of de-reservation by application of deeming fiction. He places reliance upon the law laid down by a Coordinate Bench of this court in the case of Ranjan Manubhai Doctor Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2005(1) Mh.L.J. 718.

5. In our view, the law in this regard is well settled inasmuch as the provisions contained in Section 127 of the MRTP Act are also clear and unambiguous. Under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, a land owner gets a right of de-reservation of his land by application of deeming fiction if he issues a notice calling upon the Planning Authority or the Development Authority or the Appropriate Authority to purchase the land in terms of the provisions of Section 126 of the MRTP Act and the Planning Authority or the Development Authority or the Appropriate Authority fails to take steps for acquisition of the land in question within the period prescribed in Section 127 of the MRTP Act, presently the period prescribed is of two years and in case of the purchase notice in question involved in this petition, this period was of one year. In such a case, owner of the land gets right of seeking declaration about de-reservation of his land by deeming fiction. Of course, the notice to be sent under Section 127 of the MRTP Act can be issued only after lapsing of period of ten years from the date of coming into force of the final regional plan or final development plan. It may be noted here that Section 127 clearly speaks of final regional plan or final development plan and it does not refer to any draft regional plan or draft development plan and, therefore, what is relevant for the purpose of deciding the question of deemed de-reservation is final regional plan or final development plan, which is in force, and since revised plan includes regional plan or development plan, a revised plan in the context of Section 127 of the MRTP Act is a sanctioned or final revised plan, and not a draft revised plan.

6. In the case of Balkrishna Jagannath Lad (Supra), a Coordinate Bench of this court, of which one of us was