IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.334 OF 2009 Tyabji Estates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Petitioners. v. The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.Navin Parekh with Mr.Sanju H. Ahooja, advs. For the Petitioners. Ms. S.A.Module, adv. For the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.D.A.Nalawade, GP for the Respondent Nos.4 to 7. CORAM : F.I.REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 13th January , 2010. P.C. 1 It is the case of the petitioners that after the development plan has come into force on 29.12.1992 or soon thereafter, a period of 10 years expired in January, 2003. Notice was served by the petitioners on 11.5.2006 in terms of Section 127 of the M.R.T.P. Act as the authority failed to take action as required in terms of Section 127 reservation is deemed to have lapsed and the property is free from reservation. 2 On the other hand, on behalf of the Planning Authority, it is pointed out that notice dated 11.5.2006 is defective in-as-much as notice was neither served on the Planning Authority or on the Development Authority or the appropriate authority. Land was reserved for a recreation ground for the Mumbai Municipal Corporation, which is also - 2 - the Planning Authority or the appropriate authority as the case may be. Notice therefore had to be served on the relevant authority and not on the officer of that authority. Once the Act itself lays down that notice be served on the authority and the consequence results in lapsing of reservation, law will require that there must be strict compliance with the provisions. In the instance case, petitioners failed to serve notice on the appropriate authority but served notice on the officer of the authority. In that light, in our opinion, land does not stand de-reserved in terms of Section 127 of the M.R.T.P. Act. We find no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)