1 WP 685......2000 - [ J ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 685 OF 2000 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Age : 39 Yrs., Occ. Business, R/o : 1692, Tilak Road, Nandurbar. .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The Nandurbar Municipal Council, Nandurbar, through its Chief Officer, 2. The Director, Town Planning & Valuation Department, Maharashtra State, Pune. 3. The State of Maharashtra 4. The Collector, Dhule, Dist. Dhule. 5. The Collector Nandurbar, Dist. Nandurbar. .... RESPONDENTS Mr.J.R.Shah, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. D.S.Bagul & Mr. A.B.Girase, Advocates for the Resp. No.1. 2 WP 685......2000 - [ J ] WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 686 OF 2000 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Age : 39 Yrs., Occ. Business, R/o : 1692, Tilak Road, Nandurbar. .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The Nandurbar Municipal Council, Nandurbar, through its Chief Officer, 2. The Director, Town Planning & Valuation Department, Maharashtra State, Pune. 3. The State of Maharashtra 4. The Collector, Dhule, Dist. Dhule. 5. The Collector Nandurbar, Dist. Nandurbar. .... RESPONDENTS Mr.J.R.Shah, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. D.S.Bagul & Mr. A.B.Girase, Advocate for the Resp. No.1. 3 WP 685......2000 - [ J ] CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 10/08/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. Both the Writ Petitions involve common question of law and are based on same factual matrix, as such are decided together. 4. The petitioner is the owner of the property bearing S.No. 38/3 situated at Nandurbar. The Assistant Director of Town Planning published the Development Plan on 19/3/1979. The land of the petitioner was reserved in the said sanctioned Development Plan as site No. 8 for dispensary and site No. 9 for pimary school. 5. The petitioner issued a notice to the respondents U/s 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 [ For short, ‘ M.R.T.P. Act ’ ] on 31/7/1996. The said notice was served. On 1/2/1997, 4 WP 685......2000 - [ J ] the respondents replied the said notice. In the said reply, the respondents have stated that on 14/12/1996, the Municipal Council has processed the proposal and sent to the Collector. On 7/4/1998, the petitioner applied for development of the land. The same was rejected on 12/5/1998 by the respondents stating that the said land is under reservation. The petitioner has filed Appeal against the same, which also came to be dismissed observing that the matter was already processed by the Municipal Council and the proposal was sent to the Collector. 6. Mr. J.R. Shah, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no steps of acquisition has been taken by the authorities within the period of six ( 6 ) months from the date of service of the purchase notice. According to the learned counsel, the declaration U/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act [ For short, ‘ L.A. Act ’ ] has to be published within the period of six ( 6 ) months from the date of service of notice U/s 127 of the M.R.T.P. Act. In the present case, till date no such declaration U/s 6 of the L.A. Act has been published. In light of the same, the land would stand de- reserved. The learned counsel further submits that the Apex Court in a case of Girnar Traders V/s State of Maharashtra and others reported in ( 2007 ) 7 Supreme Court Cases – 555 has held that the steps contemplated in the provisions of Section 127 of the M.R.T.P. Act is a 5 WP 685......2000 - [ J ] declaration of the Notification U/s 6 of the L.A. Act. In the present case, as no such declaration is published within the stipulated period, the land would stand de-reserved. According to the learned counsel, the respondents did not have the jurisdiction to reject the application for development on the ground that the proposal was already processed and was sent to the Collector for acquisition. 7. The issue that the steps of acquisition would mean publication of declaration U/s 6 of the L.A. Act, is no longer res-integra in view of the Judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Girnar Traders referred supra. In the present case, the declaration U/s 6 of the L.A. Act has not been issued and published till date. In view of the same, the reservation will be deemed to have lapsed on the expiry of the six ( 6 ) months of the service of notice U/s 127 of the M.R.T.P. Act. 8. Even if it is accepted that the property was again reserved in the draft revised Development Plan that would not be in conformity with the provisions of law. This Court in Writ Petition No. 4698 of 1997 dated 30/06/2010 between the same parties has held that Section 127 of the M.R.T.P. Act is a fetter upon the power of eminent domain. As the land stood de-reserved and the petitioner had taken steps for the development 6 WP 685......2000 - [ J ] and thereafter if the draft revised development plan is published, that would not affect the right crystallized in favour of the petitioner. 9. In light of the above, the Writ Petitions are allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause ‘ A ’ and ‘ B ’. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 685.....2000 - [ J ]