pvr １ wp2274-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2274 OF 2011 Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. ...Petitioner vs. 1.State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents --- Mr.Nikhil Sakhardande i/b. Mr.Mandar Soman, for Petitioner. Ms.Uma Palsule Desai, AGP for Respondent no.1. Ms.S.M.Modle, for Respondent no.3. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED: 12th December,2011. P.C.:- 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges notification dated 5.8.2008 by which objections have been invited for minor modification to be done in the development plan. The land which was reserved in the development plan for railway line is now proposed to be pvr ２ wp2274-11 reserved for development plan road. The present petition has been filed after a year of issuance of that notification on the ground that a notice under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Plan Act was issued but no step to purchase the land has been taken and therefore, reservation of the land for the purpose of railway has lapsed and therefore, according to the petitioner, the land again cannot be reserved for road in the development plan. The learned Counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case  Prakash R.Gupta VS. Lonavala Municipal Council & Ors., (2009)1 Supreme Court Cases 514 . Perusal of the judgment shows that the Supreme Court in that judgment does not lay down as law that once the land is reserved for one public purpose in the development plan and that reservation lapses because of a purchase notice given under Section 127 of the Act, the plan cannot be modified for reserving the land for some other public purpose. What is further to pvr ３ wp2274-11 be seen is that what is challenged in the petition is merely a notification inviting suggestions and objections to the proposed modification. In our opinion, therefore, the petition challenging notification which contains only a proposal, cannot be entertained. Obviously, the petitioner is at liberty to raise all objections to the proposed modification. What is further to be seen is that the notification was issued in August,2008 whereas the present petition has been filed in the month of August, 2009. We do not find any explanation given by the petitioner for filing the petition about a year after the notification was issued. For all these reasons, the petition cannot be entertained. It is rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (A.A.SAYED, J.)