JUDGMENT
V.M. Kanade, JJ.
1. petitioner is seeking directions that the land bearing No. 27 in Survey No. 41/4, 44 and 46/7 at Shila Vihar Colony Poud Road, Phata, Erandawane, Pune be declared as unreserved and that the petitioner be permitted to develop the said plot and that the petitioner be paid compensation at the market rate.
FACTS:
2. Petitioner is the owner of Survey No. 27 Plot No. 41/4, 44 and 46/7 at Shila Vihar Colony, Paud Road Phata, Erandawane, Pune. A development plan was published in Pune City in the year 1972 and, in the said plan, the aforesaid plot was shown under reservation for public purpose viz. “Ring Railway”. In the subsequent development which came into force in the year 1987, the said plot of land was shown under reservation of “High Capacity Mass Transport Raut”.
3. Since the land was not acquired and the Government failed in its duty in giving effect to the reservation for more than 20 years, the petitioner sent a purchase notice to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 dated 22/9/2000 under section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966. The said notice was received by respondent Nos. 1 informed and 2 by letter dated 10/10/2000, respondent No. 2 informed the petitioner that the purchase notice sent by him was rejected as he had not annexed 7 x 12 extract of the said land as also City Survey Measurement Map and Zoning Demarcation Map of the development Scheme along with the said notice. Petitioner gave reply to the said notice informing respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that it was not necessary to supply the said documents as demanded by the Municipal Corporation. Petitioner’s case in the petition is that since no steps had been taken within a period of six months from the date of the said notice, the said reservation was deemed to have been lapsed and he was entitled to develop the said land. In spite of the said position, since respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were not permitting him to develop the land, he has filed the present Petition.
4. Respondent No. 2 has filed their reply in which it is stated that even before the said notice was received by the respondents they had initiated acquisition proceedings and in view of that the petitioner has not made out any case for the purpose of claiming deemed degeneration.
FINDINGS
5. In our view, since the acquisition proceedings had commenced even before service of notice issued by the petitioner under section 127 of the said act, it cannot be said that the conditions of section 127 have been complied with. In the present case, the purchase notice dated 22/9/2000 was served on respondents on 26/9/2000. However, even prior to that, on 2/1/2001, Standing Committee of the 2nd respondent in its Meeting No. 51 passed the Resolution No. 2157 for initiating the process of Land Acquisition in respect of the suit property. Thereafter, on 16/3/2001, the 2nd respondent had submitted the proposal for acquiring the land and had taken steps as contemplated under the provisions of the Act. Thus, in our view, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 having taken steps of passing the Resolution for initiating the process of acquisition and, thereafter, submitting a proposal to the Collector, Land Acquisition Department, Pune, the process of acquisition had been initiated. Section 127 of the said Act contemplates that once the purchase notice is issued, within six months the acquisition proceedings should be initiated. The intention behind incorporation of section 127 appears to be that the land cannot be kept unreserved indefinitely and after a period of 10 years is over, if the land is not utilised for the purpose for which it is reserved, it was open for the land owner to develop the land after giving notice under section 127 if the Corporation does not initiate the acquisition proceedings or does not take any steps for the purpose of setting the acquisition proceedings in motion. In that event, the reservation is deemed to have been lapsed. In the present case, the acquisition proceedings have been initiated in 2001 itself and Resolution to that effect has been passed by the Corporation and a proposal was submitted by the 2nd respondent to the Collector of Land Acquisition Department, Pune. Thus, in our vies, steps as contemplated under the provisions of section 127 had already been initiated. Thus the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted. There is no merit in the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.