JUDGMENT - REBELLO F.I., J.:---Heard Mr. Kale, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Rule. Respondents waive service. With consent, petition is taken up for final hearing forthwith. 2. By the present petition, petitioners seek relief of a direction to dereserve the land bearing Survey Nos. 548, 549 and 560 situated at Jalna from the respective reservation mentioned in the notice dated 31-12-2001. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 3 which is a Planning Authority under the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") had prepared and published draft development plan of Jalna city on 15-6-1985. Out of that, certain areas from Survey Nos. 548, 549, 560 were reserved. The said draft development plan was modified under sections 28 and 29 of the Act, by the respondent No. 3. In terms of the modification, certain lands were reserved which were notified as reserved sites bearing Nos. 83, 84, 85, 86 and 87. Similarly, site Nos. 88 and 89 are reserved in Survey Nos. 548/549. Apart from that another reservation is shown in Survey Nos. 549, 560 as also in Survey No. 560 as reservation Site No. 72. The final development plan has been sanctioned on 25-8-1989. It is the case of the petitioner that the land is neither developed nor the same is acquired by the respondent authorities within 10 years. On expiry of 10 years, it is the case of the petitioner that they had given purchase notice under section 127 of the Act of 1966. Inspite of the notice, which is dated 31-12-2001, the respondent No. 3 has taken no steps to acquire the land reserved. On failure by the respondents to release the land, the present petition. 3. On behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 affidavit has been filed by Gulab Ratan More, working as Special Land Acquisition Officer in the office of the Collector, Jalna. It is stated therein that there is no proposal received from the Municipal Council, Jalna, for acquiring the land bearing Survey Nos. 548, 549, 560. On behalf of respondent No. 3, reply has been filed. On the basis of the reply, various contentions have been raised. 4. It is firstly contended that there is a petition pending before this Court being Writ Petition No. 5096 of 1998. 548, 549, 560. On behalf of respondent No. 3, reply has been filed. On the basis of the reply, various contentions have been raised. 4. It is firstly contended that there is a petition pending before this Court being Writ Petition No. 5096 of 1998. The petitioners in that petition, which is by way of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), have contended that various lands, including the present lands are in fact, of the ownership of the State Government. Interim relief has been granted to restrain the transfer or disposal of the said lands. In these circumstances, it is pointed out that as the petitioners have no title to the land, relief as claimed by them cannot be granted. This aspect will be considered. It is then pointed out that insofar as land under Site No. 86, which corresponds with Survey No. 548, admeasuring 1 Hectare, 50 R's is concerned, it is reserved for the Zilla Parishad and respondent No. 3 has nothing to do with the said land. In answer, it is pointed out on behalf of the petitioners that the Planning Authority is the respondent No. 3 and consequently, the notice of purchase is served on respondent No. 3, is good notice. Lastly, it is contended that there is no plot existing as Survey No. 560 and as such, no orders can be passed. In respect of the same, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that Survey No. 560 was earlier old Survey No. 553/554. 4-A. In respect of the first contention as raised on behalf of the respondent No. 4, really speaking there is no merit considering the relief sought in the present case. In the present case, the petitioners contend that inspite of the purchase notice, respondent No. 4 has taken no steps within the statutory period to purchase the property. Even assuming that Writ Petition No. 5096 of 1998 was pending, still, it was not open for respondent No. 4 not to take any steps as, though in the survey record, name of the petitioner is shown, yet and at the highest if any relief is to be granted in Writ Petition No. 5096 of 1998, it will be held that the land belongs to the State Government and not to respondent No. 4. There is no declaration till date that the land is of the ownership of the State Government. There is no declaration till date that the land is of the ownership of the State Government. The property is surveyed in the name of the petitioners. It is then contended that notice was given to the petitioners to give further information. Even if such notice was given and was within time, time to purchase cannot be extended on that count. Such and similar objection was considered and rejected by the Apex Court in the case of (Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Dr. Hakimwadi Tenants Association)1, 1988(1) Bom.C.R. 578 . In that case, it was contended that the mere fact that respondent No. 4 had sought further information from the petitioners for the purpose of purchase, could not extend the time. In the instant case also, it is pointed out that such a notice was given. Considering the judgment in the case of Dr. Hakimwadi Tenants Association (supra), we are afraid that contention cannot be accepted. 5. We may now deal with the objection raised, namely that so far as site No. 86 identified in S. No. 548, admeasuring 1 Hectare, 50 R's, which is reserved for the Zilla Parishad. In respect of this land, petitioners have served notice of purchase in terms of section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (M.R.T.P.) Act, 1966 on respondent No. 3 and not on the Zilla Parishad. Whether such a notice is a good notice. Under section 127, in the event land reserved or otherwise, as provided therein, it is not acquired by agreement within ten years from the date of which, the Regional or Final Development Plan comes into force or if proceedings for the acquisition of such land under the Land Acquisition Act are not commenced within such period, the owner or any person interested in the land may serve notice on the Planning Authority, Development Authority or as the case may be, appropriate authority to that effect; and if within six months from the date of the service of such notice, the land is not acquired or no steps as aforesaid are commenced for its acquisition, the reservation, allotment or designation shall be deemed to have lapsed. Under the definition section, section 2(19) defines a "Planning Authority" means a local authority; and includes - a special panning authority constituted or appointed or deemed to have been appointed under section 40 and others as set out therein. Under the definition section, section 2(19) defines a "Planning Authority" means a local authority; and includes - a special panning authority constituted or appointed or deemed to have been appointed under section 40 and others as set out therein. "Local authorities" have been defined under section 2(15), which includes a Council and a Nagar Panchayat. "development authority" has been defined to means a New Town development authority, with which we are really not concerned. The Planning Authority, therefore, would be respondent No. 3. We then have "appropriate authority" to mean any public authority, on whose behalf the land is designated for a public purpose, in any plan or scheme and which it is authorised to acquire. The question, therefore, is, if the land is reserved for such a public authority, would a notice on the Planning Authority, suffice. Planning Authority includes a local authority. Therefore, if land was reserved for the planning/local authority, then it should be made available of its right under section 127 for the purpose of enabling it to take steps under section 127. However, if the land is not reserved for the Planning Authority, which includes local authority, then mere service of notice on the Planning Authority, would not suffice, as it has no role to play in the matter of purchase, unless the proposal comes to it. It is in that context, the definition of appropriate authority becomes significant. Both under sections 127 and 128, the Act has recognised Planning Authority, development authority and appropriate authority as distinct authorities. In that context, appropriate authority assumes significance because if the land is reserved for the appropriate authority, then in that event, it is the authority, which is authorised to acquire the land. Therefore, notice of purchase, after the expiry of ten years, as contemplated under section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, will have to be served on the appropriate authority. If it is not served, there is no compliance with the mandatory requirement of section 127 and to that extent, it cannot be said that the land would stand dereserved by operation of law. In that light of the matter, in so far as site No. 86 in S. No. 548 admeasuring 1 Hectare 50 R's, it cannot be said that reservation has lapsed. The petitioners, if they are advised, will have to issue fresh notice on the appropriate authority. In that light of the matter, in so far as site No. 86 in S. No. 548 admeasuring 1 Hectare 50 R's, it cannot be said that reservation has lapsed. The petitioners, if they are advised, will have to issue fresh notice on the appropriate authority. In this case, on the "Zilla Parishad" and only on the expiry of six months, after service of notice, if no steps are taken by the Zilla Parishad, would the fiction of law operate and the plot would stand dereserved. In the instant case, the fiction does not arise, as no notice under section 127 has been served on the Zilla Parishad. 6. Considering that, in so far as the rest of the land, the respondent No. 3 has neither acquired the land nor purchased it in terms as required by section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, the deeming provision of section 127 will apply, namely, if the land is not acquired or no steps as aforesaid are commenced for its acquisition, the reservation, allotment or designation shall be deemed to have lapsed, and thereupon the land shall be deemed to be released from such reservation, allotment or designation and shall become available to the owner for the purpose of development as otherwise, permissible in the case of adjacent land under the relevant plan. It is therefore clear that by operation of law, the land of the petitioner stands dereserved and the petitioner is entitled to develop the land as if there is no reservation. The petitioner has not come before us to contend that inspite of the deemed dereservation, authorities are not granting permission for use of the land under law. In such cases we could have considered the grant of a declaration, but not on the facts of the present case. Once that be a case, do not find that we can grant any relief to the petitioner by way of a direction to the respondent No. 3, as by operation of law itself the land stands dereserved. 7. With the above observations Rule discharged the petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. Petition allowed. -----