1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1891 OF 2010 Sandeep s/o Gangadhar Bhagwat, Age 33 years, Occ. Educated unemployed, R/o Shrigonda, Taluka Shrigonda, District Ahmednagar ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Assistant Director, Town Planning, Near Akashwani, Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar. 3. The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Shrigonda, Taluka Shrigonda, District Ahmednagar. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri V.D. Hon, Advocate for the petitioner Shri K.J. Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 2 Shri B.S. Shinde, Advocate holding for Shri V.P. Latange, Advocate for respondent No.3. ..... 2 CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED: 21st July, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER HARDAS, J.): 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus for declaring reservation of Gat No.914 (Old Gat No.902), admeasuring 22 gunthas, situated at Shrigonda, Taluka Shrigonda, District Ahmednagar has lapsed or the same is deemed to have lapsed and, therefore, necessary orders be passed for de-reserving the said land under the provisions of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. 3. Undisputedly, the development plan came to be finalised on 31.5.1997. The land of the petitioner at Gat No.914 (Old Gat No. 902) admeasuring 22 gunthas was shown to be reserved for construction of the Town Hall of the Municipal Council, Shrigonda. Since no steps had been taken for acquisition of the said land, the 3 petitioner issued purchase notice on 29.7.2009. The aforesaid purchase notice was duly received by the respondent Municipal Council. Despite the receipt of the said purchase notice by the respondent Municipal Council, no effective steps, as are contemplated in law, for acquisition of the said property, were undertaken by the respondent Municipal Council. The present petition, therefore, came to be filed on 24.2.2010 after lapse of period of six months from the date of receipt of the purchase notice. 4. Even during the pendency of the present Writ Petition, the respondent Municipal Council does not aver that the Municipal Council has taken any steps for acquisition of the said land. Undisputedly, within six months of receipt of the purchase notice, the Municipal Council has not taken any steps for acquisition of the said land. In fact, the resolutions annexed by the petitioner to the petition clearly indicate that the respondent Municipal Council did not evince any impress in constructing the Town Hall on the land of the petitioner, but desired to construct the Town Hall at some other site. Obviously, may be for that purpose, no effective steps had been taken by the respondent Municipal Council within six months of receipt of the purchase notice. 5. In that light of the matter, therefore, we are inclined to 4 allow this petition and accordingly, allow this petition and quash and set aside the said reservation and declare that the land of the petitioner stands de-reserved. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (P.V. HARDAS, J.)