G.S. Kulkarni, J. - (1.) RULE returnable forthwith. Respondents waives service. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties and at their request taken up for Final Hearing.
(2.) BY this Writ Petition essentially filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus against the respondents that the reservation of land bearing Survey Nos.299/3/1 (P) (in short "the land") admeasuring 6937.60 sq.meters situated at Ambad Khurd, District Nashik, is deemed to have lapsed and the petitioner is entitled to develop the said property as otherwise permissible in case of adjacent land under development plan. Briefly the facts are: The petitioner is the owner of the said plot of land having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 28.6.2006 from one Shri.Gangadhar Gopal More. The petitioner's name was mutated in the revenue records on 6.10.2006.
(3.) THE Development Plan for the Nashik city was sanctioned by the State Government on 28.6.1993 and the same was brought into force on 16.11.1993. In the Development Plan the land of the petitioner was reserved for a public purpose namely a garden under Site No.33. This reservation was published in the Government Gazette on 30.9.1993. The petitioner's land continues to be reserved for the purpose of a garden. The petitioner's case is that the Planning Authority however did not initiate any action to acquire the said land for the purpose for which it was kept reserved for a period of more than 10 years from the date on which the land was brought under reservation. The erstwhile owner therefore prior to the sale of the land to the petitioner had invoked the provisions of section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short "the M.R.T.P. Act") by issuing a purchase notice to the 1st respondent dated 10.2.2005, received by the 1st respondent on 15.2.2005. By this notice, the 1st respondent was called upon to acquire the said land within a the period of six months as stipulated under the provisions of section 127 of the M.R.T.P.Act, 1966. The notice recorded that if within the stipulated period of six months from the receipt of the notice, if no action for acquisition is initiated by the 1st respondent as required under section 127 of the Act then the reservation shall deemed to have lapsed and that the land would be free from reservation and would be available to the petitioner for development. The 1st respondent however failed to take any steps within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the said notice to acquire the land as would be required under the provisions of section 127 of the M.R.T.P. Act, 1966. The period of six months expired on 15.8.2005. The 1st respondent however continued the reservation in respect of the petitioner's land when according to the petitioner by operation of the provisions of section 127 of the M.R.T.P. Act, 1966 the reservation stood lapsed and the land had become available to the petitioner for development as otherwise permissible to be developed as per the adjacent land under the Development Plan.;