: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4224 OF 2009 Govind Tukaram Kadam ... Petitioner Vs 1. The Assistant Director, Town Planning and Planning & Special Land Acquisition Officer & 8 ors. ... Respondents Mr. Sagar Talekar for the petitioner. Mr. V.S. Gokhale, AGP, for the respondents No.1, 2 and 4 to 9. Mr. Prathamesh Bhargude i/b Mr. S.B. Deshmukh for the respondent No.3. CORAM: S.B. MHASE & R.M. SAVANT, JJ. DATED : 3RD AUGUST, 2009. P.C.: 1. The petitioner’s land has been reserved for a Primary School and Playground vide Reservation No.110 of the Final Development Plan. The grievance of the petitioner is that thereafter, the petitioner is assured that the reservation on the said land would be deleted. It is the case of the petitioner that inspite of assurance, nothing is being done. Hence, the present : 2 : Petition. 2. It would be relevant to note that under section 33(5) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, the Government is expected to consider whether within a period of ten years, the Planning Authority will be in a position to acquire the land. Thereafter, section 127 comes into play and the petitioner can issue a Notice under section 127 of the said Act if the land is not acquired. If, after the said Notice is issued, within a period of six months, the acquisition does not takes place, then the reservation lapses under the law. 3. However, in the present matter, the respondent No.3-council has filed a reply and has stated that they have moved the acquiring authority for the purposes of acquisition of the said land and Notice under section 126(4)of the MRTP Act read with section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act has already been issued. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings have already commenced. In view of the statements made in the Affidavit the Petition, as filed, is misconceived, which is, accordingly, rejected. Sd/- Sd/- (R.M. SAVANT, J.) (S.B. MHASE, J.)