Judgment: (D.D. Sinha, J.) 1. Heard Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Counsel for petitioner, Mr.J.B.Kasat, Adv. for respondent no.1 and Mrs.S.S.Wandile, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.3. 2. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is owner of land admeasuring 1.19 hectare out of survey number 219/1 of mouza Badnera, District Amravati. It is submitted that the land in question was reserved for Agricultural Produce Market Committee in the Development Plan of the City of Amravati with effect from 25.2.1997. It is contended that period of ten years has lapsed as on 24.2.2007. Petitioner sent a notice under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 and a period of six months expired on 18.11.2008. It is contended that the Development/Planning Authority has not taken any steps in respect of acquisition of land either within a period of ten years or within a period of six months from the notice dated 19.5.2008 and, therefore, by virtue of Scheme of Section 127, the reservation lapsed and the petitioner is entitled to develop the land accordingly. 3. Stand of the APMC is that before expiry of six months from the date of notice dated 19.5.2008 issued by the petitioner, letter dated 14.11.2006 along with necessary documents was forwarded by the APMC to the Collector requesting him to take appropriate steps for acquisition of land. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that merely making a request by APMC does not amount to compliance of the procedure as contemplated under Section 127 of the Act and, therefore, reservation of the land in question lapsed. In order to substantiate his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Girnar Traders vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2007) 7 SCC 555 . 4. The Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that since the proposal/communication dt. 14.11.2008 forwarded by the APMC was received by the Collector only two days prior to expiry of six months period from 19.5.2008, the Collector could only forward the proposal to the Special Land Acquisition Officer for the purpose of taking further steps in the matter. 5. We have considered the rival contentions. The law on the subject is well settled by the decision of the Apex Court reported in the case of Girnar Traders (cited supra). 5. We have considered the rival contentions. The law on the subject is well settled by the decision of the Apex Court reported in the case of Girnar Traders (cited supra). The relevant observations are reflected in paras 56 and 57, which read thus: “The underlying principle envisaged in Section 127 of the MRTP Act is either to utilise the land for the purpose it is reserved in the plan in a given time or let the owner utilise the land for the purpose it is permissible under the town planning scheme. The step taken under the section within the time stipulated should be towards acquisition of land. It is a step of acquisition of land and not step for acquisition of land. It is trite that failure of authorities to take steps which result in actual commencement of acquisition of land cannot be permitted to defeat the purpose and object of the scheme of acquisition under the MRTP Act by merely moving an application requesting the Government to acquire the land, which Government may or may not accept. Any step which may or may not culminate in the step for acquisition cannot be said to be a step towards acquisition (para 56). It may also be noted that the legislature while enacting Section 127 has deliberately used the word “steps” (in plural and not in singular) which are required to be taken for acquisition of the land. On construction of Section 126 which provides for acquisition of the land under the MRTP Act, it is apparent that the steps for acquisition of the land would be issuance of the declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act. Clause (c) of Section 126 (1) merely provides for a mode by which the State Government can be requested for the acquisition of the land under Section 6 of the LA Act. The making of an application to the State Government for acquisition of the land would not be a step for acquisition of the land under reservation. Sub-section (2) of Section 126 leaves it open to the State Government either to permit the acquisition or not to permit, considering the public purpose for which the acquisition is sought for by the authorities. Sub-section (2) of Section 126 leaves it open to the State Government either to permit the acquisition or not to permit, considering the public purpose for which the acquisition is sought for by the authorities. Thus, the steps towards acquisition would really commence when the State Government permits the acquisition and as a result thereof publishes the declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act” (para 57). 6. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, it is evident that merely requesting the State Government to take steps for acquisition of the land by itself would not amount to compliance with Section 127; the acquisition would really commence when the State Government permits the acquisition and as a result thereof publishes declaration u/s. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. In the instant case, on the backdrop of the above referred facts, the Development Authorities failed to take any step in respect of acquisition of land under reservation within a period of ten years or within six months from the date of notice dt. 19.5.2008 issued by the petitioner. Hence, in our view, the reservation stands lapsed and the land is released for development by the land owner as per the user permissible in respect of adjacent land as per the development plan. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs. Rule made absolute.