: 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.8867 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.8867 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.8867 OF 2007 Everest Education Society .. petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.Girish Kulkarni i/b.Mr.Ramchandra Yadav for the petitioner. Mr.A.H.Palekar, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1,4 and 5. Mr.S.M.Gorwadkar for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Mr.G.S.Godbole for respondent No.7. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & R.Y. GANOO, JJ. R.Y. GANOO, JJ. R.Y. GANOO, JJ. DATE : 19th June, 2008. DATE : 19th June, 2008. DATE : 19th June, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges notification dated 11.4.2008 issued under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 in relation to the land of the petitioner. 2. Admitted position is that the land of the petitioner is reserved in the final development plan for public purpose. A purchase notice was given on 19.2.1997 by the petitioner to the Municipal Commissioner for purchase of his land in accordance with the provisions of Section 127 of the Act. On receiving that notice, the Municipal Corporation passed a resolution proposing to acquire the land for the public purpose for which it is : 2 : reserved in the plan and submitted the proposal to the Collector, Pune. By order dated 21.2.1998, the Collector, Pune directed the Land Acquisition Officer to initiate proceedings for acquiring the land for the public purpose for which it is reserved. Then, on 27.1.2005, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Municipal Corporation which reads as under :- . "The Pune Municipal Corporation has decided to acquire our land bearing F.P.No.92, Town Planning Scheme, Sangamwadi, Pune City under the Land Acquisition Act for Municipal Park. This land is reserved for Municipal park under the 1987 finally sanctioned development plan of Pune city. . To avoid delay and also burden on Municipal treasury, we have decided to take T.D.R. in lieu of monetary consideration as compensation provided entire area of 41,783.7 sq.meters is converted into T.D.R. . Please therefore arrange to issue necessary T.D.R. at an early date". 3. It appears that Corporation did not take any action pursuant to the letter. Therefore, another letter was written on 7.8.2006 referring to all these developments and claiming that the reservation of the land in view of the provisions of Section 127 has lapsed. In the petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the reservation on the land has lapsed and, therefore, the Corporation could not have been issued notification under Section 126 of the Act for acquisition of land for the : 3 : public purpose. Reliance is placed on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Girnar Traders Girnar Traders Girnar Traders v/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors reported in (2007) 7 S.C. v/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors reported in (2007) 7 S.C. v/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors reported in (2007) 7 S.C. 555 555 555 and it is claimed that the proposal for compulsory acquisition of the land cannot go ahead. 4. We find that even assuming that in view of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, interpreting the provisions of Section 127 of the Act, the reservation of the land can lapse because of inability of the Corporation to acquire the land within the specified period. It is apparent that the petitioner did not act pursuant to the notice issued under Section 127 of the Act. On the contrary, by his letter dated 27.1.2005, he waived his purchase notice which issued under Section 127 of the Act because by the letter which we have quoted above, the petitioner asked for T.D.R. The T.D.R. was asked on the assumption that the land continues to be reserved for the public purpose and can be acquired compulsorily. It was conceded that the Corporation can acquire the land but instead of paying money, T.D.R. should be allowed. 5. In our opinion, after writing the letter dated 27.1.2005, the petitioner could not have claimed that the reservation of the land has lapsed pursuant to his earlier : 4 : purchase notice issued in the year 1997. If the petitioner wants the reservation to lapse, the petitioner will have to issue a fresh purchase notice. But now that notification under Section 126 of the Act has already been issued, even that is not possible. 6. In this situation, therefore, in our opinion, as the land is being acquired for the public purpose for which it is designated in the development plan, it will not be a proper exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain the petition. 7. Petition is, therefore, disposed off. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)