1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION DIST.: SANGLI WRIT PETITION NO. 6345 OF 2008 Dadaso Shivgonda Patil & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6346 OF 2008 Babgonda Balgonda Patil & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6347 OF 2008 Appaso Annaso Patil & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents WITH 2 WRIT PETITION NO. 6351 OF 2008 Babgonda Balgonda Patil & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6352 OF 2008 Anna Kamgonda Patil & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents IN ALL MATTERS: Mr. Uday Warunjikar for the Petitioners Mr. Balwant Patole i/by Mr. Shivajirao Misal for Respondents No. 2 and 3 Mr. V.S. Masurkar, Government Pleader, with Mrs. M.P. Thakur, Assistant Government Pleader, for the State. CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and J.H. BHATIA , JJ. DATE: DECEMBER 12, 2008 P.C.:- In all these petitions, same question of law and fact arises, though the petitioners are different, and relevant dates are different. For the purpose of disposal of all these cases, we are taking facts from 3 Writ Petition No. 6345 of 2008. 2. The petitioners are owners of a piece of land, which was reserved for a Garden by Development Plan sanctioned in year 1985. In all other cases also, the lands were shown reserved in the Development Plan sanctioned in 1985 under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 for different purposes. After the lapse of 10 years from reservation, under Section 127, the petitioners gave notices to the respondents either to de-reserve the lands or acquire the same within a period of 6 months. Admittedly, neither acquisition was made, nor the lands were de-reserved. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they are entitled to reliefs claimed in the petitions. 3. Counters have been filed. The lands belonging to the petitioners in all the petitions were reserved for Garden, and the stand of the Municipal Corporation is manifest from paragraph 6 of the counter, in which they have stated as follows:- “I say that on 19.3.2008, the General Body Meeting No.11 and Resolution No.262 (sic), after broad discussion, the General 4 Body of the Respondent-Corporation has taken decision and rejected the said proposal for acquisition on the ground that the said land is like trench and pool of ditches, therefore, waste water standing on the said plot, therefore, the purpose of corporation will not be served and hence, there is need (sic) of the said plot.” We have also been shown the Resolution passed by the Municipal Corporation, which is on page 15 of the petition. 4. Considering the counter-affidavit and the Resolution passed by the Corporation, we are convinced that the Corporation does not need the lands. If there is no need to the Corporation, and they are not inclined to take steps for acquiring the lands, the mandate of Section 127 of the Act requires that the lands should be de-reserved. The lands stand reserved for the last 23 years. 5. In these circumstances, we allow these petitions, and direct that the lands in question be treated as de-reserved. If the petitioners submit any plans for development of the lands, they shall be dealt with in accordance with law. BILAL NAZKI, J. J.H. BHATIA, J.