skc 1 CA-1978-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1978 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3418 OF 2007 Kisangir Shankargir Gosavi & Ors. ..Petitioners versus Nasik Municipal Corporation & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar for Petitioners. Mr. V. A. Gangal with Mr. Ashok Gade and Ms. C. K. Nirmala for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : D. D. SINHA AND SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. 10 October 2011 P.C. : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. 2. Civil application is moved by the applicants (original petitioners) seeking directing to carry out construction as per the plan which was considered and sanctioned by the respondent no.1 – Corporation in view of interim order dated 16th June 2008 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the present writ petition. skc 2 CA-1978-11 3. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition is in respect of lapsing of reservation. It is contended that the land in question was notified in the development plan for public purpose, 10 years are over, notice of purchase was issued by the petitioners under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, 1966, however no steps were taken by the respondent – Corporation to acquire the land within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the purchase notice, the land in question as per the scheme and the provisions of Section 127 of the MRTP Act is deemed to have been released from the reservation. 4. It is in this background, this Court vide interim order dated 16th June 2008 directed the respondent – Corporation to consider the building plan submitted by the petitioners for grant of sanction in accordance with law, however, the petitioners were not entitled to start construction without seeking leave of this Court. It is in these circumstances, the present civil application has been filed by the petitioners. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent – Corporation on the other hand has not disputed the factual aspect of the matter, however submitted that the Corporation in fact has taken steps for acquiring the land within a period of six months from the date of receipt of purchase notice issued by the petitioners. It is submitted that the Standing Committee of the skc 3 CA-1978-11 Corporation has passed a resolution for acquiring the land in question for widening of the road / other public purposes within a period of six months. There are further steps also taken in this regard which would show that the land acquisition proceedings were commenced before the expiry of six months from the date of purchase notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act. 6. In the backdrop of the above referred facts, the question which needs to be decided in the present writ petition is whether the action taken by the respondent – Corporation after the notice of purchase issued by the petitioner under Section 127 of the MRTP Act would amount to commencement of land acquisition proceedings within six months as per the Scheme of Section 127 of the Act, therefore it will be appropriate to hear the petition on merits. 7. In the circumstances, we direct the office to list the writ petition for hearing on 21st November 2011. 8. Civil Application disposed of accordingly. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)