T.V.NALAWADE,J. - (1.)RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard for final disposal by consent of parties.
(2.)THE petition is filed for declaration under section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the "MRTP Act" for short). It is the case of the petitioners that they are the owners of land Gat No.939 situated at Shrigonda, District Ahmednagar. THE Development Plan for the township of Shrigonda was approved in the year 1995 and in the Government Gazette it was published on 22.5.1997. THE land of the petitioners is shown as reserved for the purpose of Primary School. It is the case of the petitioners that for the period of more than 10 years, the authorities have not taken any steps for acquisition of the aforesaid land under the Land Acquisition Act and in view of the provisions of section 127 of MRTP Act, the reservation needs to be treated as lapsed.
It is the case of the petitioners that the notice of purchase was given by the petitioners on 6.12.2010. But, even after that notice, no effective steps are taken for acquisition of the aforesaid land.

Respondent Nos.1 to 3 have filed affidavits in reply. All the respondents have contended that the proceeding is premature in nature as in view of the provisions of section 127 of the MRTP Act, the petitioners ought to have waited for 12 months after giving notice of purchase. The Advocate for Municipal Council also submitted that the notice itself is defective and no record was produced to show the title or interest of the petitioners in the property along with the notice. However, it is also contended that the Municipal Council is in financial crunch and therefore, it has not passed resolution for acquisition of aforesaid land.

(3.)THE advocate of the petitioner has placed reliance on the case reported as 2008 (8) SCC 728 (Prakash R. Gupta Vs. Lonavala Municipal Council & Ors.). He has also produced a copy of judgment delivered by this Court (Coram : P.V. Hardas & N.D. Deshpande, JJ.) in WP No.1891/2010 dated 21st July 2010. We have perused the orders cited supra.
The learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Council submitted that along with the notice the petitioner did not furnish documents showing his title and interest in the subject property. Perusal of the notice clearly indicates that the petitioner claims to have title and interest in the property. The Municipal Council did not raise any objection in respect of petitioner's interest in the subject property. Considering the facts of the case this plea raised by the Municipal Council would not materially affect the outcome of the petitioner.