mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICUATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3215 OF 2005 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4411 OF 2005 Phaltan Municipal Council ..Applicant Vs. Tejbahadur Shankarlal Shrivastav & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. A.V. Anturkar i/b. Shri Sugandh B. Deshmukh for the Applicant Mr. S.M. Gorwadkar for Respondent No.1. Mr.V.A. Sonpal, A-Panel Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, JJ. DATED : 31ST MARCH, 2010 P.C. This Court by order dated 2nd September, 2005 had issued directions which are set out in para.3 of the order. 2. Admittedly the State Government has not complied with the direction as contained in para.3 of the said order. 3. This is an application on behalf of the original Respondent No.1 wherein relief is sought by way of clarification that the order passed by this Court should be implemented without taking into consideration the provisions of the Government Resolution No.LQM/18/2000/PRA.CRA.121/A-2 issued by the Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032 dated 14th June, 2001. Further prayer is that after the clarification if necessary to ask the State Government to issue declaration and publish the same in the Extra Ordinary Gazette on or before 1st December, 2005. Prayer (c ) was for enlargement of time. This application was taken out on 22nd November, 2005. 4. At the hearing of this application on behalf of the applicant learned Counsel submits that the notification of 14th June, 2001 refers to deposit before issuance of Section 4 Notification under the Land Acquisition Act. It is pointed out that the issue does not arise in this matter considering that this is acquisition under the M.R.T.P. Act and what is applicable is Section 126 of the M.R.T.P. Act. 5. We have heard learned Counsel. Direction of this Court is clear that on failure by the State Government to issue the notification within the time as set out therein the reservation shall lapse. By operation of law that reservation has since lapsed. The question as raised now by the applicant is a dispute between the applicant and the State which is original Respondent No.2 and here also respondent No.2. The direction by this Court was to the respondent No.2. The consequence of the order follows from the failure by the respondent No.2. 6. In that view of the matter, in our opinion, this Court is not called upon to pass any order clarifying or otherwise the contention as now raised on behalf of the applicant. 7. Considering the above controversy the judgment of this Court dated 2nd September, 2005 need not be interfered with. Civil Application disposed off accordingly. (DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)