1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.1361 OF 1999. 1. Sudam Shankar Gandhe, Age 55 years, Occ.Agriculturist, R/o Gandhe Mala Balikashram Road, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2. Raju Sudam Gandhe, Age 32 years, Occ.Service, R/o Gandhe Mala Balikshram Road, Ahmednagar. 3. Dattu Sudam Gandhe, Age 27 years, Occ.Agriculturist R/o Gandhe Mala Balikashram Road, Ahmednagar. ... Petitioners. Versus 1.The Director, Directorate of Town Planning, Maharashtra State, having his office at Pune. 2. The Ahmednagar Municipal Council, through its Chief Executive Officer and having its officeat Ahmednagar Municipal Council, Ahmednagar. 3. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondents. ... 2 Mr.D.J.Choudhari, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.K.B.Choudhari, Addl.Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr.V.S.Bedre, advocate holding for Mr.K.N.Lokhande, advocate for the Respondent No. 2. ... CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 12.08.2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V.Gangapurwala,J.) 1. The petitioners seek a writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to treat the petitioners' land released from the Development Plan and further to sanction the Development Plan submitted by the petitioners along with letter dated 1.9.1998. 2. The petitioners claim to be the owners of land bearing S.No.288 to the extent of 36 Ares situated within the Municipal limits of Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation. The said land is reserved for the purpose of Primary School and playground as reservation site No.44 and 45 in the Development Plan of Ahmednagar city 3 sanctioned by the Government on 11.4.1978. As the land was under reservation for a period of more than 10 (ten) years and no steps were taken by the Respondent authorities to develop the said land or to acquire it, the petitioners on 1.6.1994, issued a purchase notice U/s 127 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act and the same was served on the Respondents on 8.6.1994. The Respondents did not take any steps pursuant to the said purchase notice within the statutory period of six months. Thereafter, the petitioners on 11.6.1996, submitted the lay out plan for development. The said layout plan is not sanctioned by the Respondents, as such the petitioners have approached this Court. 3. It is not disputed that the petitioners had issued the purchase notice U/s 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, on 1.6.1994 and the same has been served on the Respondents on 8.6.1994. It is also not disputed that the Respondents have not issued any declaration U/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, within the statutory period nor till this date 4 the said declaration has been issued. 4. Mr.Bedre, learned counsel contends that on 4.7.1996, the revised draft Development Plan was published and the same was sanctioned by the Government on 4.6.2008 and in view of the fact that the said land is again under reservation, the petitioners can not get benefit of the notice U/s 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act. 5. The petitioners had already applied for the development of their land on 11.6.1996 i.e. prior to the publication of the revised draft Development Plan on 4.7.1996. The rights of the petitioners were crystalised prior to publication of draft Development Plan. In similar set of facts in W.P.No.4698/1997, we have held that once the rights have been crystalised then the same can not be divested by a subsequent publication of the revised draft Development Plan. For the reasons recorded in W.P.No.4698/1997, we allow the petition and hold that the land of the petitioner to the extent of 36 Ares of S.No.288 5 is released from reservation. 6. Rule made absolute accordingly in above terms with no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (B.R.GAVAI,J.) asp/office/wp136199