1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No. 739/2011. Sadhuram Pataldhamal Wadhwani -VERSUS- The District Collector and others. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : JULY 20, 2011. Heard finally by consent of Shri S.S. Joshi, learned Counsel for petitioner, Shri Kankale, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Ms. Anjankar, learned Counsel holding for Shri D.M. Kale, learned Counsel for respondent no.3. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for respondent no.3 has tendered reply. The same is taken on record. Shri Joshi, learned Counsel has pointed out that the land survey no.51 belonging to petitioner and 2 located within the limits of respondent no.3 Municipal Council was reserved in part for garden and in part for gymnasium, in the development plan vide reservation no.69 and 78, as per the notification under Section 31[1] of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 dated 08.07.1998. This development plan came into force from 04.09.1998. As no steps were taken for acquiring that land by respondent no.3 or by any of the respondents and for putting it to its designated purpose, petitioner served a notice under Section 127 of the M.R.T.P. Act on 06.01.2009 by hand and thereafter, as no response thereto was received within a period of six months, on 29.07.2009 by R.P.A.D. That R.P.A.D. notice was replied by the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council stating that the legal notice was not accompanied by necessary title documents. On 04.09.2009 by way of abundant precaution the petitioner submitted necessary documents. Thereafter on 06.11.2009 the Municipal Council passed a resolution to proceed to acquire the said land. After that resolution, petitioner was 3 communicated on 13.04.2010 that because of these steps the reservation has not lapsed. Shri Joshi, learned Counsel contends that till date no notice under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act has been published and therefore, the reservation has lapsed. He contends, that it is not necessary for the Municipal Corporation to demand title document from the petitioner. Learned Counsel for respondent no.3 is supporting the reply dated 13.04.2010 as sent to the petitioner by the Municipal Council. He contends that as notice served under Section 127 of the M.R.T.P. Act, was not accompanied by the title documents, the notice was not legal and valid and hence, no cognizance thereof could have been taken. The title documents were furnished for the first time vide notice dated 04.09.2009 and thereafter appropriate steps have been taken and as the proceedings for acquisition are initiated, the reservation has not lapsed. Learned A.G.P. has invited attention to the reply affidavit to urge that on 01.02.2010 the Municipal Council was directed to comply with the 4 government policy in this respect by first approaching the land owner for its purchase by private negotiations. The failure of private negotiations was informed on 13.01.2010 and hence, further steps for joint measurement pursuant to section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act notification, were initiated. These replies and arguments reveal that till date no steps for acquisition of Survey no.51 of petitioner have been initiated, as required by law. Even if it is presumed that, for the first time the petitioner submitted title document on 04.09.2009, still the necessary steps have not been taken within the requisite period of six months. Hence, the question whether demand for title documents from petitioner is in accordance with law or not, need not be gone into in present facts. It is, therefore, clear that respondent no.3 Municipal Council has not initiated appropriate steps within the stipulated period and hence reservation of land of petitioner as shown by reservation nos. 69 and 78 has lapsed. Petition is, accordingly allowed. The reply dated 04.01.2010 issued by the Municipal 5 Council is of no consequence and the same is therefore, not binding upon the petitioner or any body else. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no orders as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd