D.D. SINHA, J.:- Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. Heard Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. C. S. Kaptan, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Agrawal, A.G.P. for the State. 3. In the present case, following facts are not disputed :- (i) The petitioners are owners of lands bearing plot Nos.1/35, 1/36, 1/37 and 1/38 admeasuring 4800 sq. ft., 4800 sq. ft., 4280 sq. ft. and 4800 sq. ft. respectively, situated at Rajapeth, Amravati. (ii) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has contended that as per the development plan of city of Amravati, which came into effect on 25-02-1993, the lands in question, were reserved for playground and recreational activities (public utility). However, within a period of 10 years, no proceedings were initiated and. therefore, in view of Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966, the petitioners issued notice to the town planning Authority dated 21-04-2004, which was served on respondent No.1. In the said notice, the petitioners have requested the Planning Authorities to acquire the land, if they were interested, within a stipulated period. 4. Mr. Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, has further contended that in spite of service of notice on the Planning Authority, the Planning Authority failed to take any steps in this regard within a period of six months from the date of service of the said notice and, therefore, the reservation stood lapsed after expiry of the said period and the lands in question were released to the petitioners for the purpose of carrying on development activities. The petitioners, thereafter, submitted applications dated 28-01-2006 to the Planning Authority, seeking permission to construct compound wall, which were rejected by respondent No.2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further contended that on 16-11-2005 respondent No.1 has passed resolution wherein land in question is proposed to be reserved for playground. Respondent No.1 has, thereafter, issued Notification dated 16-01-2006 whereby the said land in question is once again proposed to be reserved for playground. It is further contended that in view of judgment of this Court dated 22-11-2004 rendered in Writ Petition No.3200/ 1989 as well as another decision of this Court in case of Kishor Gopalrao Bapat and others Vs. Respondent No.1 has, thereafter, issued Notification dated 16-01-2006 whereby the said land in question is once again proposed to be reserved for playground. It is further contended that in view of judgment of this Court dated 22-11-2004 rendered in Writ Petition No.3200/ 1989 as well as another decision of this Court in case of Kishor Gopalrao Bapat and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2005(4) Mh.L.J. 466 : [2006(1) ALL MR 232], resolution dated 16-11-2005 as well as Notification dated 16-01- 2006 issued by respondent No.1 cannot be sustained in law. 5. Mr. Kaptan, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 Municipal Corporation, does not dispute the factual aspects of the matter, however, contended that Notification, which is issued by respondent No.1 dated 16-01-2006, is under Section 38 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act and, therefore, merely because the land on earlier occasion is released from reservation due to lapsing of statutory period, does not take away right of respondent No.1 under Section 38 of the Act to issue impugned Notification dated 16-01-2006 particularly because applications for grant of permission submitted by the petitioners are after the Notification dated 16-01-2006. 6. Considered the contentions canvassed by respective counsel. Perused the decisions relied on and cited by learned Senior Counsel as well as provisions of Section 38 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966. 7. On perusal of decision in case of Kishor Gopalrao Bapat and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2005(4) Mh.L.J. 466 : [2006(1) ALL MR 232] (supra), the controversy in issue, in our view, stands concluded, particularly in view of observations made in para 11 and 13, which reads thus: "11. The question, which falls for our consideration in the present petition is whether the Planning Authority exercising power under Section 38 of the MRTP Act, which deals with revision of development plan, can take away the rights accrued to the owner of the land on account of lapsing of reservation in view of contingencies mentioned in Section 127 of the MRTP Act. Similar factual and legal situation arose in the case of Shri. Baburao Dhondiba Solakhe (cited supra) and this Court after taking into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in Bhavnagar University Vs. Similar factual and legal situation arose in the case of Shri. Baburao Dhondiba Solakhe (cited supra) and this Court after taking into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in Bhavnagar University Vs. Palitana Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. And others, 2003(1) SCC 111, in paragraph (17) observed thus: "The legal position as regards MRTP Act on the basis of aforesaid observations made by the Apex Court in Bhavnagar University emerges that by imposition of a statutory obligation under Section 38 on the part of the State or the appropriate authority to revise the development plan the rights of the owners accrued in terms of section 127 are not taken away. Section 38 of MRTP Act, in our view, does not and cannot be read to mean that substantial right conferred upon the owner of the land or the person interested under Section 127 is taken away. In other words, Section 38 does not envisage that despite the fact that in terms of Section 127, the reservation lapsed, only because of a draft revised development plan or final revised development plan is made would not automatically result in revival of reservation that had lapsed. If the reservation of the petitioner's land for the purposes of garden had lapsed and as we found in fact has lapsed on 28-2-1992, because of draft revised plan made in the year 1992 and thereafter final revised development plan sanctioned in the year 1999 would not revive the lapsed reservation. “12 ..... We do not agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 petition suffers from delay and laches particularly when final development plan came into force in the year 2004 and petition is also filed in the year 2004 and, therefore, same is rejected." 8. In view of above referred observations, it is evident that once reservation is lapsed and land is released from the reservation, it is available to the owner of the said land for the purpose of development as otherwise permissible in case of adjacent land under the relevant plan and this right, which is accrued to the owner of the land due to lapsing of reservation, cannot be taken away by planning Authority by exercising powers under Section 38 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act. 9. 9. In the instant case in view of the above undisputed facts as well as settled legal position in law we have no hesitation to hold that resolution dated 16-11-2005 passed by respondent No.1 as well as Notification dated 16-01-2006 published by respondent No.1 cannot be sustained in law. 10. Merely because the applications were made by the petitioners for grant of permission to construct compound wall were made after publication of Notification in the official gazette, that by itself does not revive right under Section 38 of the Act, in view of decisions of this Court referred to hereinabove. So far as decision relied on by learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 in case of Ranjan Manubhai Doctor and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2005(1) Mh.L.J. 718 is concerned, the same is rendered in different set of facts and circumstances and, therefore, is of no help to the respondents. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned resolution dated 16-11-2005 and Notification dated 16-01-2006 issued by respondent No.1 as well as four communications dated 23-03-2006, 24-03-2006,27-03-2006 and 27-03-2006 respectively are hereby quashed and set aside. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to decide applications of the petitioners for grant of permission, on its own merits, within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order to it. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs. Petition allowed.