1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 1654 OF 2010. Dr. Rajesh s/o Sardarsing Malani, aged about 44 years, Occu. Medical Practitioner, R/o Pusad, Tq. Pusad, District Yavatmal. ..... PETITIONER ....Versus.... 1] The State of Maharashtra, through The Secretary of Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2] The Director Town Planning Department, Maharashtra State, Pune, 3] Dy. Director Town Planning, Amravati Division, Amravati, 4] Asstt. Director, Town Planning Department, Yavatmal, 5] Municipal Council, Pusad, through its Chief Officer, Pusad, Tq. Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal. 6] Regional Town Planning & Development Authority, Municipal Council, Pusad, Through its Chief Officer, Pusad, Tq. Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal. ........ RESPONDENTS. 2 Mr. J.J. Chandurkar, Advocate for petitioner, Mr. A.D. Sonak, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos.1 to 4, Mr. A.M. Ghare, Advocate for respondent no.5. CORAM: S.A. BOBDE & S.B. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATED : APRIL 30, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER S.A. BOBDE, J.) 1] Taken up for final hearing by consent. 2] The only question in this petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to have his land de-reserved since no action has been taken by the respondents inspite of service of notice under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966. The petitioner’s field Survey No. 63/1A, 63/IC & 63/1D, total admeasuring area of 4 Acres 7.37 Gunthas of land was reserved under the Pusad Town Development Plan for playground. This Development Plan was published on 26.7.1998. During ten years, no steps were taken by the respondent nos. 5 & 6 to acquire the aforesaid land. 3] The petitioner, therefore, addressed a notice under 3 Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 to the respondents calling upon them to do the needful within the stipulated period. This notice was duly received on 25.8.2008. There is no dispute before us about the service and receipt of this notice. 4] In spite of service of such notice, the respondents have not taken any action for acquiring the land. In the affidavit filed by the State of Maharashtra, the respondents have stated that it is the responsibility of the respondent No.5 Municipal Council to do the needful after receiving the purchase notice under Section 127 of the Act. 5] The respondent no.5 has not denied the status of the land and the service of the notice. However, according to them, they need the land in question for the purpose of the playground and they would acquire the land as soon as financial aid is extended by the State Government. 4 6] We find no merit in the contention on behalf of the respondent no.5. There is admittedly a failure to act according to law in spite of service of notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act. Section 127 of the Act reads as follows :- “127. Lapsing of reservations : (1) If any land reserved, allotted or designated for any purpose specified in any plan under this Act is not acquired by agreement within ten years from the date on which a final Regional plan, or final Development plan comes into force or, if a declaration under sub-section (2) or (4) of Section 126 is not published in the Official Gazette within such period, the owner or any person interested in the land may serve notice, along with the documents showing his title or interest in the said land, on the planning authority, the Development Authority or, as the case may be, the Appropriate Authority to that effect; and if within twelve months from the date of the service of such notice, the land is not acquired or no steps as aforesaid are commenced for its acquisition, the reservation, allotment or designation shall be deemed to have lapsed, and thereupon the land shall be deemed to be released from such reservation, allotment or designation and shall become available to the owner for 5 the purpose of development as otherwise, permissible in the case of adjacent land under the relevant plan, (2) On lapsing of reservation, allocation or designation of any land under sub-section (1), the Government shall notify the same, by an order published in the Official Gazette.” 7] In these circumstances, the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed. The issue is covered by the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 4393/2009 (M/s. Revati Construction and Developers .vs. The State of Maharashtra & others) decided on 10.1.2011 and the decision of the Supreme Court in Girnar Traders .vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2007) 7 SCC 555. 8] In these circumstances, the petition is liable to be allowed and is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (1) which reads as follows :- “1] hold and declare that, the reservation of the petitioner’s land in question i.e. field survey no. 63/1A, 63/1C and 63/1D, having total admeasuring area of 4 6 Acres 7.37 gunthas of land situated at mouz Pusad, block no. 1, Tq. Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal, stood lapsed and it is released from its reservation as play ground as shown in development plan of Pusad Town and it becomes available to the petitioner for the purpose of its development as otherwise permissible in the case of adjacent land, under the development plan of Pusad Town, and upon holding and declaring the same allow the petitioner to enjoy and to utilize it as permissible in law, under the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice and equity.” Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs. 9] In view of the above, C.A.W. No. 870/11 for final disposal of the writ petition stands allowed. JUDGE. JUDGE. J.