7] This is a case of acquisition of property for the public purpose of recreation, in terms of a reservation under section 126 of the MRTP. Quite recently, the Full Bench of this Court, had the occasion to consider the issue as to whether the provisions of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act regards lapsing of acquisition apply to the acquisition proceedings initiated in terms of sections 125 to 127 of the MRTP. The Full Bench after, examining the scheme, scope and import of the two legislations has held that the provisions in section 24(2) the 2013 Act cannot be made applicable to acquisition initiated under sections 125 to 127 of the MRTP. Prima facie therefore, all the provisions of either the 1894 Act (wherever applicable) or the 2013 Act cannot be mechanically made applicable to the proceedings for acquisition under sections 125 to 127 of the MRTP. In this case, Mr. Soni was unable to point out any precise breach in the context of the provisions of the 2013 Act. The writ petition, makes reference to breach of section 9 of the 1894 Act, which provision, is clearly not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case. There is accordingly no legal infirmity in the making of the impugned award.
