(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 4234 OF 1999 Shri Shantilal Tarachand Bothra, Aged : 46 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Bazar Peth, Main Road, Chopda, District : Jalgaon. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Director of Town Planning, M.S., Pune. 3. The Municipal Council, Chopda, District : Jalgaon (through Its Chief Officer). 4. The Assistant Director of Town Planning, Jalgaon. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. A.B. Kale, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.B. Chaudhary, Additional Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1, 2 and 4. Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate, for respondent no.3. ........................ (2) CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 17TH AUGUST 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the letter dated 3rd July 1999, issued by the respondent no.3, thereby refusing to sanction layout plan in respect of land, bearing Gut No. 1629/7 (i.e. Survey No. 1326 Part), CTS No. 5980/7, situated at Chopda (District : Jalgaon). 2. The aforesaid land, along with the other lands, in Gut No. 1629 was reserved for a primary school in the development plan which was sanctioned by the State Government by communication dated 8th October 1986. Since no steps for acquisition of the land, in question, were taken by the authorities, the petitioner issued a purchase notice on 11th September 1997. Since the purchase notice was not acted upon by the respondent / Municipal Council or the State, the petitioner has approached this Court, inter alia, praying that since the respondents have failed to take steps to acquire the land, in pursuance to the notice issued under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, the reservation stands lapsed and the petitioner is free to develop the (3) land, as desired by him. 3. Mr. A.B. Kale, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that in so far as a part of the land for which the reservation was for the same purpose, has been held to be declared as de-reserved, vide judgment of this Court, in the case of Ranjana w/o. Laxmanrao Choudhary and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2010(3) Mh.L.J. 62). 4. Mr. P.B. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.3 / Municipal Council, submits that though initially the Municipal Council had passed a resolution, not to acquire the said land since the Collector had cancelled the said resolution, the Municipal Council has submitted a proposal to the Collector for acquisition of the land. He, therefore, submits that the said land does stand automatically de-reserved. 5. Undisputedly, a part of the land, which was reserved for primary school i.e. Gut No. 1629/1, has been held to be de- reserved by the judgment of this Court, in the case of Ranjana w/o. Laxmanrao Choudhary and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra). The facts in the said case, and the facts in the present case, are identical. In that view of the matter, we find that the present petition also deserves to be allowed for the same reasons, for which Writ Petition in the case (4) of Ranjana w/o. Laxmanrao Choudhary (supra), has been allowed. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses "A" and "B". Needless to state, that the respondents shall take necessary steps, which are required in law, consequent to the orders passed by this Court. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp4234