(1) JUD-2563.2009-WP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2563 OF 2009 Maharana Pratap Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Old Vimantal, Old Malegaon Raod, Chalisgaon, Tal. Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon, Through its Secretary, Vijaysing S/o Ratansing Rajput PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 2. The Director (Town Planning) Maharashtra State, Pune, Dist. Pune 3. The Deputy Director (Town Planning) Nashik Region, Nashik, Dist. Nashik 4. The Municipal Council, Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon Through its Chief Officer (Resp. 1 to 3 to be served through Govt. Pleader) 5. The Collector, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon 6. District Planning Committee, C/o Collector of Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon (Resp. no.5 and 6 be served through Government Pleader, High Court, Bench Aurangabad) RESPONDENTS (2) JUD-2563.2009-WP ..... Mr. P.R. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, Addl. G.P. for the Respondent-State. Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Advocate for the respondent no.4 ..... CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGEMNT : 02ND AUGUST, 2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 12TH AUGUST, 2011 JUDGMENT (PER - M.T. JOSHI, J.):- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. 2. The petitioner by the present Petition seeks a declaration that survey no. 349/A-2, 354-B, 354-C, 356-C, 358-C, A and B covered by the reservation no. 103, 104 and 105 in the development plan notified by the respondents for Chalisgaon be declared as de- reserved upon lapsing of the reservation under section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the M.R.T. P. Act"). (3) JUD-2563.2009-WP 3. The petitioner is the owner of the above referred immovable property. Respondent no.4- Municipal Council Chalisgaon after due procedure had published final development plan on 22nd December, 1989, in which the present property was reserved for play ground, high school and primary school. The petitioner earlier requested the respondent-Municipal Council to acquire the said land by paying compensation. They also made a request to the Assistant Director, Town Planning for determination of the value of the land. However, as the land was not acquired nor the compensation was determined ,the petitioner on 21st February, 2000 served a notice under section 127 of the M.R.T.P. Act, requesting the respondents to acquire the property as ten years had lapsed from the date of the publication of the final development plan. As no steps were taken by any of the respondents or the development authority for acquisition of the land, the present Petition is filed for a declaration that the reservation has lapsed in view of the provisions of section 127 of the M.R.T.P. Act. (4) JUD-2563.2009-WP 4. The learned counsel for the respondent no.4 Municipal Council submitted that since the petitioner itself had requested it to acquire the said land and to pay compensation, now it cannot turn away from the proposal and say that the land is de-reserved. Respondent no.1 in its reply has submitted that the petitioner society has served the purchase notice on 21st February, 1999, however, the respondent no.4 Municipal Council has not initiated any proposal for acquisition of the land within the stipulated period of six (6) months and, therefore, it cannot be blamed for the same. Respondent Municipal Council had submitted that it being a 'D' class Municipal Council, its financial condition was very poor and therefore, no steps could be taken for depositing the necessary amount with the Collector in order to acquire the land. Therefore, it had persuaded respondent no.1 State for funds of ` 10871.05 lakhs for the purposes of acquisition of land. However, no amount is received inspite of several reminders. 5. The sum and substance of all the material on record is that after due service of the purchase (5) JUD-2563.2009-WP notice under section 127 of the M.R.T.P. Act, neither steps were taken for acquisition of the land within six months of the service of the notice nor thereafter. In view of this position the reservation has lapsed. 6. Mr. R.N. Dhorde learned counsel for the respondent-Municipal Council however vehemently submitted that since the funds were not made available, the acquisition could not take place. In case of Jairam Sidheshwar Kancharlawar Vs. Municipal Council and ors. 2008 (3) Bom.C.R. 905, a similar plea was taken by relevant Municipal Council therein and this Court has held that unless the steps of acquisition of land reserved under the development plan are taken such a plea cannot be accepted in law. Therefore, the submission cannot be accepted. 7. As regards the submission that the petitioner itself has shown readiness for acquisition of the land by the development authority, it cannot be termed as an estoppel since informally the petitioner earlier had offered to hand over the land by private negotiation and when the respondent no.4 (6) JUD-2563.2009-WP Municipal Council failed to take any steps the petitioner was required to take recourse to the provisions of section 127 of the M.R.T.P. Act i.e. of issuing a statutory purchase notice. The earlier action of the petitioner, therefore, cannot be termed as an estoppel but merely as a bonafide offer. 8. In the circumstances, the Petition will have to be allowed. It is hereby declared that reservation no. 103, 104, 105 relating to survey no. 349/A-2, 354-B, 354-C, 356-C, 358-C, A & B of the development plan of respondent no.4-Municipal Council, Chalisgaon has lapsed. Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Sd/- Sd/- [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.] arp/