1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2551 OF 2011 (Giriraj Venugopal Naidu vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. JULY 14, 2011. Heard Shri Agnihotri, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Kankale, learned AGP for respondents No. 1, 2, 3, 6 & 7. It is not in dispute that in development plan, the land is earmarked for Respondent No. 5 – APMC. Shri Agnihotri, learned counsel contends that as APMC is not local authority within the meaning of Section 2(15) of MRTP Act, reservation for it cannot be presumed as reservation for public purpose and in terms of Section 126(1) it cannot be acquired. In the alternative, he contends that land is not now needed for APMC. The learned AGP has invited attention to Section 126(1) read with Section 2(3) to urge that APMC is appropriate authority. He further points out Section 12(2) of APMC Act, to show that the APMC is 2 also a local authority. We find that Section 12(2) confers status upon APMC as local authority and for the purposes of MRTP Act, it is also a appropriate authority. Section 126(1) in terms permit acquisition for such appropriate authority. As the land is earmarked in development plan for APMC, the effort of the petitioner to show that the land is not needed by the APMC cannot be countenanced. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the petition, It is rejected. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.