1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 3227 OF 2006. 1. Purushottam Hanumandas Mall, Aged about 50 years, 2. Sau. Suraj Purushottam Mall, Aged about 47 years, 3. Ravi Purushottam Mall, Aged about 25 years, All R/o Telhara, district Akola. ..... PETITIONERS ....Versus.... 1] State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2] Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 3] The Collector, Akola, 4] Municipal Council, through its Chief Officer, Telhara, 5] Superintendent of Police, Akola, 6] The Commandant, Home Guards, Mumbai, 2 7] The District Commandant, Home Guards, Akola. ........ RESPONDENTS. Mr. S.S. Khadse, Advocate for petitioner, Ms. T.H. Khan, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos.1 to 3, Mr. Anjan De, Advocate for respondent no.4. CORAM: S.A. BOBDE & S.B. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATED : APRIL 26, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER S.A. BOBDE, J.) 1] Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2] The petitioners are owners of land Survey No. 7/2 admeasuring 1.18 hectares within the limits of Municipal Council, Telhara. This land was earlier reserved for development plan by respondent no.4 as a site for Police Quarters and Playground since 30.6.1976. Since no steps were taken, the petitioners issued a notice under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 on 14.7.2004 which was received by the respondents. However, according to the petitioners, no steps have been taken for acquiring the said land and, therefore, the land stands de-reserved under 3 Section 127 of the Act. 3] Ms. T.H. Khan, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos.1 to 3, submitted that steps have been taken by issuance of the communication of the Superintendent of Police, Akola, who submitted a proposal for acquisition of land within a period of six months. However, Ms. T.H. Khan, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos.1 to 3, fairly accepted the fact that notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act has not been issued. It is a settled law that the requisite steps for acquisition contemplated by Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 should be a step of acquisition of land and not a step for acquisition of the land, vide Girnar Traders .vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2007) 7 SCC 555. This view has been followed by this Court in Shivram s/o Kondaji Sathe and others .vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2009(3) Mh.L.J. 859. Thus, there is no doubt that the petitioner is entitled for a declaration that the land in question stands released 4 from the provisions of law in view of the notice dated 14.7.2004. 4] Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) & (b). Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs. 5] In view of the above, C.A.W. No. 608/11 for early hearing of the petition does not survive and is disposed of as such. JUDGE. JUDGE. J.