: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6445 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.6445 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.6445 OF 2008 Namdeo Murlidhar Pingale & Ors. ...Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.M.S.Karnik with Sachin Gite , advs. for the Petitioner. Mr.V.A.Sonpal, AGP for the Respondent/State. Mr.M.L.Patil, adv. for the Respondent No.2. Mr.R.C.Master with Smt.S.V.Bharucha, advs. for the Respondent No.3. CORAM: Bilal Nazki CORAM: Bilal Nazki CORAM: Bilal Nazki & J.H.Bhatia,JJ J.H.Bhatia,JJ J.H.Bhatia,JJ. DATE : 10th December, 2008. DATE : 10th December, 2008. DATE : 10th December, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Rule. Rule. Rule. 2. Petitioner’s petition is heard with consent of the learned counsel for the parties finally. 3. Petitioner contends that he is the owner of the land in Survey No.428/4 admeasuring 23 R situated at Village: Makhmalabad within the jurisdiction of Nashik Municipal Corporation. Development plan for the Nashik Municipal Corporation was published in the year 1993.The land belonging to the petitioner was reserved for a : 2 : post-office. After a lapse of twelve years from the publication of notice under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, no steps were taken by the State for acquisition of the land. Therefore, he sent the notice on 25-1-2007 in terms of Section 127 of the Act. He contends that in terms of Section 126, land should be treated to be un-reserved as no steps envisaged under Section 127 were taken by the respondents to acquire the land. Section 127 is reproduced below: "127. Lapsing of reservation.- If any land reserved, allotted or designated for any purpose specified in any plan under this Act is not acquired by agreement within ten years from the date on which a final regional plan, or final development plan comes into force or if proceedings for the acquisition of such land under this Act or under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (I of 1984), are not commenced within such period, the owner or any person interested in the land may serve notice on the planning authority, development authority or as the case may be, Appropriate authority to that effect; and if within six months from the date of the service of such notice, the land is not acquired or no steps as aforesaid are commenced for its acquisition, the reservation, allotment or designation shall be deemed to have lapsed, and thereupon the land shall be deemed to be released from such reservation, allotment or designation and shall become available to the owner for the purpose of development as otherwise, permissible in the case of adjacent land under the relevant plan." Respondent/State has not filed any counter. The respondent no.3 have filed their counter in which they have stated that they have informed the State Government with respect : 3 : to their intention to pay for acquisition of the land as they need the land for construction of the post office. It is also submitted that no notice was given by the petitioner to the Director General, Post Office whereas the notice to the respondent no.3 is conceded. Section 127 envisages notice be given to the planning authority, development authority or appropriate authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that notice was given to the Senior Superintendent, Post Office, which was a appropriate authority as the land has been reserved for its use. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no steps as envisaged under Section 127 were taken up for acquisition of land and any letters written by the respondent no.3 to the Collector would not constitute a step within the meaning of Section 127 and the matter is concluded by the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra Supreme Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra Supreme Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra Supreme Court Cases (2007) 7 SCC 557 Court Cases (2007) 7 SCC 557 Court Cases (2007) 7 SCC 557. In paragraph 57 of the judgment, the Supreme Court held: "57. It may also be noted that the legislature while enacting Section 127 has deliberately used the word "steps" (in plural and not in singular) which are required to be taken for acquisition of the land. On construction of Section 126 which provides for acquisition of the land under the MRTP Act, it is apparent that the steps for acquisition of the land would be issuance of the declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act. Clause (c) of Section 126(1) merely provides for a mode by which the State Government can be requested for : 4 : the acquisition of the land under Section 6 of the LA Act. The making of an application to the State Government for acquisition of the land would not be a step for acquisition of the land under reservation. Sub-section (2) of Section 126 leaves it open to the State Government either to permit the acquisition or not to permit, considering the public purpose for which the acquisition is sought for by the authorities. Thus, the steps towards acquisition would really commence when the State Government permits the acquisition and as a result thereof publishes the declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act." Since no steps have been taken within six months of notice given by the petitioner to the respondents. Writ Petition deserves to be allowed and it is declared that the land in question be treated as non-reserved. (Bilal Nazki, J.) (Bilal Nazki, J.) (Bilal Nazki, J.) (J.H.Bhatia, J.) (J.H.Bhatia, J.) (J.H.Bhatia, J.)