Reservation lapses if no acquisition steps are taken within the mandated timeframe, allowing landowners to utilize their land per applicable laws.

1. Rule.

2. Rule made returnable forthwith heard finally at the admission stage by consent of counsel.

3. The Petitioners seek a declaration that the old Reservation No. 17 as 'Garden' on their land has lapsed by operation of S.127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act 1966 ("MRTP Act") and, consequently, a direction for the release of their land to them for development as permissible in law.

4. In the case of Shivgonda Anna Patil v Sangli Miraj and Kupwad City Municipal Corporation 2023: BHC - AS :29348 - DB : (AIROnLine 2023 Bom. 2357) decided by us, we referred to a judgment in the case of Uday Madhavrao Patwardhan and Others v. Sangli Miraj Kupwada City Municipal Corporation, Sangli and Others 2015 SCC OnLine Bom. 659 : (AIROnLine 2015 Bom. 125) where it was held that there is no need for the owner to seek a declaration of the lapsing of reservation from the Court. The relevant paragraph 16 read thus:

"16. ... After service of a valid notice under S.127 to either the Appropriate Authority or the Planning Authority, as the case may be, if steps as contemplated by S.127 are not taken within the period stipulated in the section the reservation shall be deemed to have lapsed and the land in respect of which the notice is issued shall be deemed to be released from the reservation. Thus, by operation of law the land stands released from the reservation and the Planning Authority or Appropriate Authority cannot treat the land as reserved. In fact there is no need for the owner to seek a declaration from the court of law on the basis of notice under S.127. The effect of lapsing of reservation on the basis of the notice is automatic.....". (Emphasis added)

5. The law is abundantly clear. However, this Petition appears to have been filed out of abundant caution.

6. The Petitioners own a part and parcel of land admeasuring 2.28 HR of Survey No. 201/3 situated within the limits of village Pathardi, Tq and District Nasik ("said land"). The said land has been sub-divided in 3 parts namely Survey Nos. 201/1 admeasures 1.10 HR, Survey No. 201/2 admeasures 1.9 HR and Survey No. 201/3 admeasures 2.28 HR. The Petitioners are concerned with Survey No. 201/3 and the other two belong to Popat Keru Chaudhary and Baban Keru Chaudhary. The sub-division of lands in 5 parts amongst the Petitioners in the 7/12 extract is at exhibit "A" page 26 of this Petition.

7. The factual narrative is thus.

8. The said land was under reservation by Nasik Municipal Corporation ('NMC') under the Government Notification No. TPS - 1193/2124 / CR - 126/95 / UD - 9 dated 19th February 1996 for "Garden" and construction of "DP Road". This notification was confirmed by another Government Notification No. TPS - 1116 / C.R.No.140(B)2016 / UD - 9 by the Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai on 9th January 2017. Thus, the said land's new reservation No. is 329 for "Garden".

9. There is no dispute that the said land has been reserved for "Garden" and "DP Road" for more than 10 years and that no steps have been taken for acquisition by either any agreement or by publication of declaration as contemplated under S.126 of the MRTP Act.

10. On 25 May 2011, the Petitioners issued and served a purchase notice under S.127 of the MRTP Act., upon the Respondents. The same is annexed at Annexure "C" of the Petition at page 33. On 7th June 2011, the 4th Respondent called upon the Petitioners to submit certain documents. In response thereto, on 22 June 2011 the Petitioners submitted the documents and the explanations sought for from the Petitioners and communicated rejection of TDR offered by the NMC.

11. There has been no communication since 7th June 2011 by the Respondent Corporation. In these circumstances, the Petitioners seek that the Petition be