1 wp2858.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2858 OF 2009 Jaleel Ahmad s/o Abdul Ahmad, age major, occupation: business, r/of Sudagar, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Parbhani, District Parbhani. Petitioner versus 01. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Mantralaya, Annex, Mumbai- 400 032. 02. The Collector, Parbhani, District Parbhani. 03. Chief Officer, Parbhani Municipal Council, Parbhani. 04. Assistant Director, Town Planning, Parbhani, District Parbhani. ------ Shri G.D. Shaikh, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Shri K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for Resp. Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Shri S.S. Bora, Advocate, for Respondent No.3. ------ Coram: Smt. Nishita Mhatre and M.T. Joshi, JJ. Judgment reserved on : 02.08.2011. Judgment pronounced on : 12 .08.2011 Judgment (Per: Smt. Mhatre, J.) 01. This petition has been filed for a declaration that the Revenue Survey No. 624/Part, reserved for site No. 3/20 of the Development Plan of Parbhani town be de-reserved, in view of the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 ("The MRTP Act" for short). 2 wp2858.09 02. The undisputed facts in this case are as follows :- The petitioner is the owner and possessor of the land bearing Site No.70 in Revenue Survey No.624/Part, admeasuring 1.21 hectors. The petitioner's name is included in the revenue record for the Parbhani Tahsil, District Parbhani. The original development plan for the district was sanctioned by the government in the year 1975. Site No.70, which is owned by the petitioner, was shown to have been reserved for a primary school. The limits of the municipal council, Parbhani, were extended and, therefore, a fresh development plan was prepared. New areas were included in the fresh plan. The new development plan was published on 30.9.1999 and was brought into effect from 16.12.1999. The petitioner's land was shown reserved again for a primary school and a play ground. However, in stead of reserving 1.21 hectors as was initially reserved in the original plan, the new plan had scaled down the reservation of petitioner's land to 0.40 hector which has been renumbered as Site No. 3/20. The development plan for the Parbhani town was approved and was implemented with effect from 16.10.2001. 03. A purchase notice was issued by the petitioner as contemplated under Section 49 of the MRTP Act, on 17.6.1999. Respondent No.2 i.e. the Collector, Parbhani, communicated to Respondent No. 3-the Chief Officer of the Parbhani Municipal Council, by letter dated 7.2.2000 that the purchase notice was confirmed. In fact, the petitioner was informed on 15.12.1999 by the Additional Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, that the purchase notice was confirmed and that the petitioner should approach the Municipal Council, for appropriate action. 3 wp2858.09 04. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted before us that the purchase notice issued on 17.6.1999 has been received by the Chief Officer of the Parbhani Municipal Council . No action was taken by the Municipal Council at all after the receipt of that notice. He further submits that the State has informed the Municipal Council by its communication dated 7.2.2000 that its proposal for acquisition of the land can be completed only after complying with the conditions to be fulfilled by it for acquisition of the land. This included the deposit of the requisite amount with the State. The learned Advocate submits that despite this letter of 7.2.2000 having been received by the Municipal Council, it has taken no action in the matter and, therefore, the petitioner's land must be de-reserved. 05. The learned Advocate for the Municipal Council has submitted before us that the municipal council has not received any such letter from the State, which is dated 7.2.2000, indicating the requisites which were to be complied with by the Municipal Council to set in motion the acquisition proceedings. He submits that the relevant inward register does not indicate that such a letter was ever received by the Council and, therefore, the question of complying with any formalities of prerequisites for acquisition did not arise. 06. Thus, there is a controversy as to whether, in fact, the municipal council had received the letter dated 7.2.2000. On 7.7.2008, the Assistant Director, Town Planning, Parbhani, informed the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, regarding the proposal of the 4 wp2858.09 petitioner for development of his land. In this communication, there is a reference to the letter of 7.2.2000 sent by the Collector, Parbhani, to the Municipal Council, regarding the proposal for acquisition of the petitioner's land and the compliance of the necessary requirements. 07. The affidavit of the State, also referred to the letter issued by the Collector to the Municipal Council on 7.2.2000. In these circumstances, in our opinion, the contention raised on behalf of the Municipal Council that it had not received the letter of 7.2.2000, cannot be accepted. 08. There is no dispute today, that the steps for acquiring the petitioner's land have not been taken within six months of his purchase notice dated 15.12.1999. 09. In Girnar Traders, the Supreme Court has observed that the expression "steps to be taken" under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, means the issuance of a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. In the present case, there can be no dispute that such steps have not been undertaken by the State, probably because despite the purchase notice, the Municipal Council took no action in the matter for depositing the required amount with the State to initiate the acquisition proceedings. 10. In these circumstances, in our opinion, the reservation has lapsed, in view of the provisions of Section 127 of the MRTP Act. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The petitioner's land Survey No.624/Part, referred as 5 wp2858.09 Site No.3/20 in Development Plan of Parbhani town, has been de-reserved. The Respondents shall issue an order, deleting the petitioner's land from the reservation. The petitioner would be entitled to use the said land in accordance with the law. Petition stands disposed of. (M.T. JOSHI, J.) (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.) pnd/wp2858.09