2)It is not in dispute that period of more than two years
has lapsed since receipt of purchase notice under Section 127(1) of
the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereafter
“the Act” for brevity) by the respondent no.2. The ownership of the
subject land to be with the petitioners is also a fact, which is not in
dispute. Another fact, which is not in dispute, is that no steps for
acquisition of the subject land as contemplated under Section 127 of
the Act have been taken by the respondent no.2 in the sense that no
notification under Section 19 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 has been issued. Admittedly, the proposal sent by the
respondent no.2 to respondent no.1 for compulsory acquisition of the
subject land has been returned by the respondent no.1 pointing out
certain lacunae in the proposal and these lacunae as per requirement
of Section 127(1) of the Act are not to be removed by the petitioners,
but by the respondent no.2, which is also the view taken by
coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Abdul Gani N Wadwan
vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2018 LawSuit (Bom) 1003).
The ingredients of Section 127(1) of the Act for declaring lapsing of
the land under reservation have been fulfilled in this case and the
result is that this petition deserves to be allowed.
