Judgment A.S. Oka, J. 1. Parties have been put to notice that the Petition will be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 2. The Petitioners are claiming to be the owners of the land more particularly described in paragraph 1 of the Petition. The first Respondent Nashik Municipal Corporation has been constituted under the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. The first Respondent Corporation is the Planning Authority within the meaning of Section 2(19) the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short “the MRTP Act”). A Development Plan for the City of Nashik was sanctioned on 28th May, 1993 by the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 31 of the MRTP Act. The land described in paragraph 1 of the Petition (for short “the said land”) was shown reserved in the sanctioned Development Plan for a garden under a Reservation bearing No.358-C. As no steps were taken for acquisition of the said land by the first Respondent, on 16th August, 2011, the Petitioners served a notice under Sub-section (1) of Section 127 of the MRTP Act to the first Respondent calling upon the first Respondent to take steps for acquiring the said land within a period of twelve months from the date of service of notice. The first Respondent Corporation replied to the said notice by a letter dated 29th August, 2011. By the said reply, the Petitioners were called upon to produce certain documents. On 24th November, 2011, the Standing Committee of the first Respondent passed a resolution being Resolution No.1294 by which an approval was given for sending a proposal to the Collector for acquisition of the said land. The resolution specifically records that process will have to be started within a period of twelve months from the date of notice served by the Petitioners. On 15th May, 2012, the Collector, Nashik passed an order delegating his powers to acquire the said land to the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) No.2, Nashik (for short “the Deputy Collector”). The Deputy Collector addressed a letter dated 8th June, 2012 to the Taluka Inspector of Land Records on the basis of the proposal for acquisition and directed the TILR to conduct joint measurements and prepare a joint measurement map in respect of the said land. The Deputy Collector addressed a letter dated 8th June, 2012 to the Taluka Inspector of Land Records on the basis of the proposal for acquisition and directed the TILR to conduct joint measurements and prepare a joint measurement map in respect of the said land. By letter dated 30th August, 2012, office of the District Collector informed the Petitioners that the proposal for the acquisition of the said land was under process and the work of joint measurements was pending. The contention in the Petition is that within twelve months from the date of service of notice under Sub-section (1) of Section 127, a notification under Sub-section (4) of Section 126 of the MRTP Act read with Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the said Act of 1894”) has not been issued and, therefore, the reservation on the said land shall be deemed to have been lapsed. Accordingly, a writ of mandamus has been sought in this Petition. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners urged that the case will be squarely governed by the latest decision of the Apex Court in the case of ShrirampurMunicipal Council V/s. Satyabhamabai Bhimaji Dawkher and others (2013) 5 SCC 627 )and, therefore, necessary writ may be issued. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the first Respondent Municipal Corporation urged that the notice under Sub-section (1) of Section 127 was not accompanied by the documents of title of the Petitioners and a map issued by the TILR. Inviting our attention to the factual statements made in the affidavit of Shri Mahesh Narayanprasad Tiwari, the Estate Manager of the first Respondent Corporation, he urged that at the level of the State Government at every stage, there was a delay in processing the proposal for acquisition. He pointed out that on 24th November, 2011, an approval was granted by the Standing Committee for acquisition of the said land. He pointed out that one Shri Chandrashekhar Babulal Shah has made correspondence on behalf of the Petitioners with the Deputy Collector. The learned counsel submitted that there appears to be a collusion between the Petitioners and the Officers of the State Government and, therefore, it was ensured that no action is taken by the State Government within the stipulated period of 12 months. The learned counsel submitted that there appears to be a collusion between the Petitioners and the Officers of the State Government and, therefore, it was ensured that no action is taken by the State Government within the stipulated period of 12 months. He has placed on record a compilation of documents showing the steps taken by the Municipal Corporation to ensure that the said land is acquired. He placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. And others V/s. Union of India and others (1986) 1 SCC 133 ).He also relied upon another decision of the Apex Court in the case of ShrishtDhawan V/s. M/s. Shaw Brothers (1992) 1 SCC 534 )in support of his contention that the Petitioners in collusion with the officers of the State Government have acted fraudulently. He urged that there was no necessity of carrying out a survey before issuing a notification under Sub-section (4) of Section 126 of the MRTP Act. Inviting our attention to the provisions of the said Act of 1894, he urged that the same provides for carrying out survey only after publication of a notification under Section 6 of the said Act of 1894. He urged that the work of carrying out survey through the Survey officers under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short “the said Code”) takes inordinately long time. He urged that if such procedure is followed, practically in every case where a notice is issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 127, the reserved land would be released from reservation on account of delay on the part of the State machinery. He urged that there is no provision under the said Act of 1894 which requires the Planning Authority to deposit a part of the compensation before a notification under Section 6 of the said Act of 1894 is issued. Inviting our attention to the provisions of the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005 and in particular Section 10 thereof, he urged that the disciplinary action will have to be taken against the erring Government Officers. 4. The learned AGP relied upon the Government Resolution dated 12th February, 2014 which incorporates directions issued in exercise of powers under Section 154 of the MRTP Act. 4. The learned AGP relied upon the Government Resolution dated 12th February, 2014 which incorporates directions issued in exercise of powers under Section 154 of the MRTP Act. He urged that the said Government Resolution takes care of the apprehensions expressed by the learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation. He also relied upon the Government Resolution dated 13th February, 2014 on the subject. He also invited our attention to the Government Resolution dated 14th June, 2001 which was specifically issued to curtail the delay in the acquisition proceedings under the said Act of 1894. Lastly, he invited our attention to the Government Resolution dated 17th January, 2008 which requires the Planning Authority to deposit requisite amount before issuing a notification under Section 6 of the said Act of 1894. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relying upon the affidavit of the second Petitioner dated 24th February, 2014 pointed out that Shri Chandrashekhar Babulal Shah is a constituted Attorney of the Petitioners under the Power of Attorney dated 9th August, 2012. He pointed out that there is a Memorandum of Understanding executed by and between the Petitioners and M/s. Viraj Estate Private Ltd under which the development rights in respect of the said land have been agreed to be transferred to the said M/s. Viraj Estate Private Ltd. He pointed out that Shri Chandrashekhar Babulal Shah is the Director of the said Company and, therefore, the Petitioners have executed a Power of Attorney appointing Shri Shah as their Constituted Attorney. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions. There is no dispute that the notice dated 16th August, 2011 issued by the Petitioners under Sub-section (1) of Section 127 of the MRTP Act was served to the first Respondent Municipal Corporation on 16th August, 2011. In the said notice, the Petitioners have stated that they are the owners of the said land and the same is reserved for garden under the sanctioned Development Plan. The Petitioners, by the said notice, called upon the first Respondent to take steps for acquisition of the said land within a period of twelve months. It is stated that if the acquisition was not commenced within the stipulated time of twelve months, the said land will become available for development. The Petitioners, by the said notice, called upon the first Respondent to take steps for acquisition of the said land within a period of twelve months. It is stated that if the acquisition was not commenced within the stipulated time of twelve months, the said land will become available for development. The notice specifically records that 7/12 extract of the said land and a map of the said land have been annexed to the said notice. On 29th August, 2011, by a letter addressed by the Estate Manager of the first Respondent Corporation, the Petitioners were called upon to produce 7/12 extracts of the current year, a survey map and a copy of the order passed by the Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. 7. Section 127 of the MRTP Act reads thus:- “127. Lapsing of reservations.-(1) If any land reserved, allotted or designated for any purpose specified in any plan under this Act is not acquired by agreement within ten years from the date on which a final Regional plan, or final Development plan comes into force [or, if a declaration under sub-section (2) or (4) of Section 126 is not published in the Official Gazette within such period, the owner or any person interested in the land may serve notice, alongwith the documents showing his title or interest in the said land, on the Planning Authority, the Development authority or, as the case may be, the Appropriate Authority to that effect; and if within twelve 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, 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. [(2) On lapsing of reservation, allocation or designation of any land under sub-section (1), the Government shall notify the same, by an order published in the Official Gazette.]” 8. There is no requirement of producing documents of title along with notice. The requirement is of producing documents showing title of the person issuing the notice. [(2) On lapsing of reservation, allocation or designation of any land under sub-section (1), the Government shall notify the same, by an order published in the Official Gazette.]” 8. There is no requirement of producing documents of title along with notice. The requirement is of producing documents showing title of the person issuing the notice. In the present case, we must note here that even in the reply filed by the first Respondent Municipal Corporation, the title of the Petitioners has not been disputed. Moreover, the notice itself records that a copy of 7/12 extract was forwarded along with the said notice. In paragraph 9 of the Petition, a specific assertion has been made that a copy of 7/12 extract was submitted by the Petitioners along with the said notice and there was no necessity for producing the survey map. In the affidavit in reply filed by the first Respondent, there is no denial of what is stated in the paragraph 9 of the Petition. We must note here that in the letter dated 29th August, 2011, it is not stated that the documents set out in paragraph 3 of the notice dated 16th August, 2011 were not produced. What is stated is that a 7/12 extract of the current financial year was not produced. The other documents set out in the said letter are copies of the return filed under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, copies of the survey maps, layout plan, etc. The requirement of Subsection (1) of Section 127 is only of producing documents showing title. A 7/12 extract was produced by the Petitioners along with the notice which in the facts of the case will be a sufficient compliance with the requirement of the statute. 9. The requirement of producing documents showing title has been held to be mandatory. The said requirement is for the benefit of the Planning Authority. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Planning Authority not only that the title of the Petitioners to the said land is not disputed, but on 24th November, 2011, the Standing Committee of the Planning Authority acting upon the notice passed a resolution for submission of a proposal for acquisition of the said land. In the said resolution (Exhibit “E” to the Petition), it is specifically recorded that the Petitioners are the owners of the said land. In the said resolution (Exhibit “E” to the Petition), it is specifically recorded that the Petitioners are the owners of the said land. Therefore, even assuming that compliance with the mandatory requirement was not made, it is obvious that the said requirement was waived by the first Respondent. 10. It is an admitted position that within a period of twelve months from the date of service of notice dated 16th August, 2011, a notification under Section (4) of Section 124 of the MRTP Act r/w Section 6 of the said Act of 1894 was not issued. Therefore, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shrirampur Municipal Corporation (Supra) will squarely apply and the reservation stands lapsed. The allegations of collusion between the Petitioners and the officers of the State Government have not been substantiated apart from the fact that the same are devoid of particulars. 11. Now, we deal with the other issues raised by the learned counsel appearing for first the Municipal Corporation. It is true that we have come across several cases where after service of notices under Sub-section (1) of Section 127 of the MRTP Act, the Planning Authority had moved the Collector for initiating acquisition proceedings, but no steps were taken by the officers of the State Government by issuing a notification under Sub-section (4) of Section 126 r/w Section 6 of the said Act of 1894 within the stipulated period. As a result, the orders of release from reservation have been passed. 12. At this stage, it must be necessary to make a reference to the scheme of MRTP Act. On conjoint reading of Section 125 and Section 126, it is apparent that a recourse can be taken to acquisition proceedings under the said Act of 1894, when a land is reserved even in a draft Development Plan. After the Development Plan is sanctioned, recourse can be taken by the Planning Authority to one of the three modes prescribed by Sub-section (1) of Section 126 for acquiring a land reserved or designated for any purpose under the Development Plan. A Development Plan in accordance with Section 22 of the MRTP Act provides for several reservations and designations. The said land in the present case was shown reserved for a garden. A Development Plan in accordance with Section 22 of the MRTP Act provides for several reservations and designations. The said land in the present case was shown reserved for a garden. As we have narrated earlier, the Development Plan was sanctioned on 28th June, 1993 which came into force with effect from 16th November, 1993. The notice was issued on 16th August, 2011. Between the year 1993 to 2011, the Planning Authority could have always taken steps to acquire the reserved land. Thus, to some extent, there is a neglect even on the part of the Planning Authority. The resolution was passed by the Planning Authority on 24th November, 2011 proposing to acquire the said land. When the notice was served on 16th August, 2011, we fail to understand as to why there was a delay in placing the proposal before the Standing Committee. From the additional compilation tendered on record by the learned counsel appearing for the Planning Authority, it appears that on the basis of the Resolution dated 24th November, 2011, a proposal for acquisition was forwarded by the Commissioner of the Planning Authority on 4th February, 2012. Time of more than two months was taken to submit a proposal for acquisition in terms of the resolution of the Standing Committee. On 29th March, 2012 a letter was addressed by the Collector to the Commissioner of the Planning Authority stating that against column Nos.4, 5, 12 and 21 of the prescribed form in Schedule “F” information was not filled in and, therefore, the Commissioner was called upon to fill in the information and submit it to the Municipal Corporation. On 15th May, 2012, the Collector passed an order in exercise of powers under Section 52-A of the said Act of 1894 authorizing the Deputy Collector to take steps for acquiring the said land. On 8th June, 2012, the Deputy Collector addressed a letter to the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records, Nashik requesting him to carry out measurement of the said land and necessary survey fee was deposited. A reminder was issued by the Estate Manager of the Planning Authority to the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records on 4thAugust, 2012 specifically pointing out that the time for issuing notification will expire within twelve months from the date of notice served by the Petitioners. A reminder was issued by the Estate Manager of the Planning Authority to the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records on 4thAugust, 2012 specifically pointing out that the time for issuing notification will expire within twelve months from the date of notice served by the Petitioners. Again on 30th October, 2012, the Estate Manager of the Planning Authority addressed a letter to the City Survey Officer No.1, Nashik and District Superintendent of Land Records, Nashik by pointing out that the office of the District Superintendent of Land Record had called upon the Planning Authority to submit 7/12 extracts and the names of the occupants. The said letter addressed by the Estate Officer of the Planning Authority records that the 7/12 extracts and the names of the occupiers were available in the file. It is stated that unnecessarily some documents were being demanded by the District Superintendent of Land Records. It is stated that if there is a delay in issuing notification, the responsibility will be of Survey Department. A reminder was again issued by the Estate Officer to the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records at Nashik on 12th April, 2013. However, no steps were taken. It appears that as the survey was not carried out, further steps were not taken. 13. It will be necessary to make a reference to Section 8 of the said Act of 1894 which reads thus:- “8. Land to be marked out, measured and planned. - The Collector shall thereupon cause the land (unless it has been already marked out under section 4) to be marked out. He shall also cause it to be measured, and (if no plan has been made thereof), a plan to be made of the same”. 14. Thus, under the provisions of the said Act of 1894, the survey and measurements are required to be carried out after a notification under Section 6 of the said Act of 1894 is issued. There is no specific provision under the said Act of 1894 which provides that unless the land proposed to be acquired is measured, notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the said Act of 1894 cannot be issued. We have perused the Manual of land acquisition for the erstwhile State of Bombay which is followed in the State. There is no specific provision under the said Act of 1894 which provides that unless the land proposed to be acquired is measured, notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the said Act of 1894 cannot be issued. We have perused the Manual of land acquisition for the erstwhile State of Bombay which is followed in the State. It must be stated here that in Clause 88 in Chapter V of the manual, it is provided that first essential for an examiner of the proposal for acquisition is that the land should be demarcated. The said manual contains the departmental instructions and the same are not mandatory in nature. 15. In the case of acquisition under Sub-section (1) of Section 126 of the MRTP Act on the basis of the reservation provided in the sanctioned Development Plan, normally all the particulars of a reserved land such as its exact area, revenue survey number or city survey number are available in the sanctioned development Plan. As far as the acquisition under the MRTP Act is concerned, there is no requirement of issuing a notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act of 1894. A notification issued under Sub-section (4) of Section 126 of the said Act of 1894 is on par with Section 6 of the said Act of 1894. In fact, the requirement of Sub-section (2) of Section 126 is that the notification is required to be issued in a manner provided under Section 6 of the said Act of 1894. We are of the view that in a case where a demarcation map and all particulars of the land sought to be acquired such as exact area of the land, survey /CTS number are available, it is not necessary for the Collector or the Land Acquisition Officer to insist on a survey/measurements before issuing notification under Sub-sections (2) or (4) of Section 126 of the MRTP Act. 16. In view of Section 125 of the MRTP Act, after publication of a notification under Subsection (4) of Section 126, the acquisition will be in accordance with the said Act of 1894. 16. In view of Section 125 of the MRTP Act, after publication of a notification under Subsection (4) of Section 126, the acquisition will be in accordance with the said Act of 1894. Section 8 of the said Act of 1894 provides that after a declaration is made under Section 6 and after an order is passed under Section 7, the Collector is under an obligation to cause the land to be measured and marked provided it is not marked as per Section 4. It provides that if no plan has been made of the acquired land, the plan shall be made. We may note here that under Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the said Act of 1894, after publication of a notification under Subsection (1) of Section 4, it is open for the officers of the State Government to enter upon the land notified and to survey the same. We do not see any provision either under the MRTP Act or under the said Act of 1894 which requires that the survey and measurements must be carried out before issuing a declaration under Sub-section (2) or (4) of Section 126 of the MRTP Act or a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act of 1894. In the present case, the survey was ordered to be carried out by the Deputy Collector which could not take place within a reasonable time. We find that in many cases, proceeding of acquisition is not initiated within the time provided under Section 127(1) of the MRTP Act only due to the fact that the Land Acquisition Officers insist on survey and measurements and the survey department takes inordinately long time to carry out survey. The State Government will have to examine this aspect. 17. There is another aspect of the matter. Our attention is invited to the Government Resolution dated 17th January, 2008 which requires the Planning Authority to deposit certain percentage of estimated compensation as a condition precedent for issuing notifications under the said Act of 1894. The question is whether a publication of declaration under Sub-section (2) or (4) of Section 126 of the MRTP Act should be delayed because the Planning Authority does not deposit the requisite amount. Even the said aspect needs reconsideration by the State. 18. The question is whether a publication of declaration under Sub-section (2) or (4) of Section 126 of the MRTP Act should be delayed because the Planning Authority does not deposit the requisite amount. Even the said aspect needs reconsideration by the State. 18. Our attention is invited to the Government Resolution dated 24th June, 2001 which has been issued with the object of reducing the delays in completion of acquisition proceedings. The said Resolution provides for carrying out a joint survey before a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act of 1894 is issued. It provides that within a period of three months, survey and measurement shall be carried out from the date on which the Collector receives the proposal under Section 52-A of the said Act of 1894. In practice, this time limit is very rarely adhered to. 19. After service of notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, a reasonable time is required by the Planning Authority to move the Collector for acquisition. The Collector may take some time to scrutinize the proposal. If in every case survey is insisted upon, and if the process of the survey is delayed, a notification as required by Sub-section (4) of Section 126 cannot be issued within the statutory deadline of twelve months. 20. We have noticed that in large number of cases as the State could not meet the deadline of twelve months, the reservation under the Development Plan has lapsed. The preparation and sanction of Development Plan involves elaborate exercise for several years at different levels. The exercise involves enormous expenditure. The reservations under a development plan cannot be allowed to lapse only because of the delay on the part of the Planning Authority as well as on the part of the State Government. Otherwise, the very purpose of providing reservations in the Development Plan will be frustrated. Perhaps, the period of twelve months is provided to take a decision whether the acquisition of the land is necessary. In most of the cases, which this Court has come across, after finding that the acquisition is necessary, the reservation has lapsed due to delays on the part of both the Planning Authority and the State machinery. Sometimes unscrupulous persons take undue advantage of these procedural delays. 21. In most of the cases, which this Court has come across, after finding that the acquisition is necessary, the reservation has lapsed due to delays on the part of both the Planning Authority and the State machinery. Sometimes unscrupulous persons take undue advantage of these procedural delays. 21. It is desirable that the State Government considers this serious aspect of delays and comes out with a specific mechanism to avoid such delays. The cause of action for issuing a notice under Sub-section (1) of Section 127 of the MRTP Act arises only when the land under reservation is not acquired within a period of 10 years from the date on which the Development Plan comes into force. The State Government may consider of issuing a direction under Section 154 of the MRTP Act to the Planning Authorities to consider the cases of reserved lands for commencing acquisition before the completion of a period of 10 years so that acquisition can be initiated even before the occasion for serving a notice under Sub-section (1) of Section 127 arises. We propose to grant time of four months to the State to take appropriate policy decision in this behalf. 22. Hence, we pass the following order:- ORDER (i) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a); (ii) We direct the State Government to issue notification under Sub-section (2) of Section 127 of the MRTP Act within a period of three months from today; (iii) We direct the State Government to take appropriate decision in the light of the discussion made in paragraph Nos. 15 to 21 above; (iv) For reporting compliance of this direction, the Petition shall be placed on board under the caption of “Directions” on 1st September 2014; (v) The decision/action taken by the State Government shall be placed on record on the date fixed; (vi) The Petition is disposed of on above terms; (vii) All concerned to act upon an authenticated copy of this order.