JUDGMENT : VASANTI A NAIK, J. Whether the amended provisions of Section 127 (1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 that enlarge the period within which the planning/development or appropriate authority could take effective steps for the acquisition of the land would apply to the proceedings initiated in pursuance of a purchase notice served on the authority before the amended provisions came into effect, is a question that falls for consideration in this petition. 2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are brief and are stated thus : The petitioners are the owners of 0.54 Hectares of land in Pusad and the said land was reserved for primary school under the final development plan published on 26.07.1998. As the planning or the appropriate authority, i.e. the respondent no.2 did not acquire the land within ten years from the date of publication of the final development plan, the petitioners served a notice under Section 127(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity), on the respondent no.2, on 06.01.2015. As per provisions of Section 127(1) of the Act, that were in force on 06.01.2015, the appropriate authority was required to take effective steps for the acquisition of the land within twelve months from the service of the notice or else the reservation of the land would be deemed to have lapsed. On the date of service of the notice on the respondent no.2 on 06.01.2015, as per the provisions of Section 127(1) of the Act, the land would be deemed to have been released from reservation for primary school and the same would have become available to the petitioners for the purpose of development, if effective steps were not taken for the acquisition of the land within twelve months from the date of service of the notice. Before the expiry of the period of twelve months from 06.01.2015, the provisions of Section 127(1) of the Act were amended and by the amendment that was brought into effect on 29.08.2015, the period of twelve months to take effective steps was enlarged and the appropriate authority was permitted to take steps within twenty four months. Before the expiry of the period of twelve months from 06.01.2015, the provisions of Section 127(1) of the Act were amended and by the amendment that was brought into effect on 29.08.2015, the period of twelve months to take effective steps was enlarged and the appropriate authority was permitted to take steps within twenty four months. According to the petitioners, since the petitioners have a right to develop their land in view of the deemed lapsing if the appropriate authority failed to take effective steps within twelve months from the date of service of the notice on 06.01.2015, the petitioners have filed the instant petition seeking a declaration that in view of the unamended provisions of Section 127(1) of the Act, that would apply to the petitioners, the reservation of the land of the petitioners is deemed to have lapsed as the respondent no.2 has failed to take effective steps for the acquisition of the land within twelve months from the service of the notice. 4. Shri Deshpande, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that after the petitioners served a notice under Section 127(1) of the Act on the respondent no.2, on 06.01.2015, the respondent no.2 did not take any effective steps for the acquisition of the land. It is stated that section 6 notification (or a notification under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013) as required by the judgment in the case of Girnar Traders Versus State of Maharashtra & Others, reported in (2007) 7 SCC 555 is not issued by the respondent no.2, till this date. It is stated that the amended provisions of Section 127(1) of the Act that permit the appropriate authority to take effective steps for the acquisition of the land within twenty four months as against twelve months, as provided by the unamended provisions, would not apply to the case of the petitioners as the proceedings under Section 127(1) of the Act commenced in the case of the petitioners on the date of service of the notice under Section 127(1) of the Act on the respondent no.2. It is stated that it is well settled that a statute would operate prospectively unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to operate retrospectively. It is stated that it is well settled that a statute would operate prospectively unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to operate retrospectively. It is stated that there is nothing in the amending Act that provides expressly or by necessary implication that the amended provisions of the Act would be retrospective in operation. It is stated that it is held by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in 2015(1) Mh.L.J. 719 (Shantaram Shankar Jamsandekar & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Others) that if the land is not acquired within ten years from the publication of a final development plan, an independent right would be accrued to a person under Section 127 of the Act of 1966 in view of the inaction on the part of the appropriate authority to acquire the land by agreement within ten years from the commencement of the final development plan. It is stated that the petitioners had a legal right to issue a purchase notice on the respondent no.2, as held by this Court in the judgment reported in the case of Shantaram (supra) as the respondent no.2 had failed to acquire the land within ten years from the date of publication of the final development plan. It is stated that a further right is accrued in favour of the petitioners on the date of service of the notice on the appropriate authority that the reservation of the land would lapse if effective steps are not taken by the appropriate authority for the acquisition of the land within twelve months. It is stated that the right of the petitioners to seek a declaration in respect of the lapsing of the reservation on the expiry of twelve months in view of the inaction on the part of the appropriate authority cannot be taken away by the amended provisions. It is stated that though almost twenty three months have lapsed from the date of service of the notice, the respondent no.2 has not taken any effective steps for the acquisition of the land. It is stated that in the circumstances of the case, it would be necessary to declare that the reservation of the land of the petitioners has lapsed in view of the unamended provisions of Section 127(1) of the Act. 5. It is stated that in the circumstances of the case, it would be necessary to declare that the reservation of the land of the petitioners has lapsed in view of the unamended provisions of Section 127(1) of the Act. 5. Shri Joshi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State of Maharashtra, has opposed the prayer made in the writ petition. It is stated that the right in the petitioners to seek a declaration in respect of deemed lapsing would have been crystalized only on the expiry of twelve months if no effective steps were taken by the respondent no.2 and since the amended provisions are brought on the statute book before the expiry of twelve months, the petitioners would not have a right to seek a declaration of deemed lapsing, in view of the unamended provisions of the Act. 6. Shri Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2, does not dispute that the notice under the provisions of Section 127(1) of the Act was served on the respondent no.2, on 06.01.2015. It is also not disputed that effective steps were not taken by the respondent no.2 for the acquisition of the land within twelve months from the date of service of the notice. It is stated that the amended provisions of Section 127 of the Act would apply to the case in hand, as before the expiry of the period of twelve months, the provisions of Section 127 of the Act were amended, thereby permitting the respondent no.2 to take effective steps within twenty four months as against twelve months, as provided under the unamended statute. It is stated that since the amended provisions of Section 127(1) of the Act came into force on 29.08.2015, the case of the petitioners would be governed by the amended provisions. It is stated that the object of enlarging the period for taking effective steps was to grant further time to the appropriate authorities that were not in a position to complete the necessary formalities for the acquisition of the land within twelve months. According to the learned counsel, the petition is premature as the period of twenty four months would expire only on 06.01.2017. 7. It is a cardinal principle of construction that every statute would normally be prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have a retrospective operation. According to the learned counsel, the petition is premature as the period of twenty four months would expire only on 06.01.2017. 7. It is a cardinal principle of construction that every statute would normally be prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have a retrospective operation. We do not find anything in the amending Act or the amended provisions of Section 127(1) of the Act that expressly or by necessary implication provides that the amended provisions of Section 127(1) of the Act would have a retrospective operation. On the date of service of the notice under Section 127(1) of the Act on the respondent no.2 on 06.01.2015, as per the unamended provisions that were then in force, the land of the petitioners would have been released from reservation had the respondent no.2 failed to take effective steps for the acquisition of the land within twelve months from 06.01.2015. If we apply the amended provisions of Section 127(1) of the Act to the proceedings that commenced in pursuance of the service of the notice on the respondent no.2 on 06.01.2015, it would result in construing that the amended provisions of Section 127(1) of the Act are retrospective in nature. We are not inclined to hold that the amended provisions of Section 127(1) of the Act would have a retrospective operation as that is not the express or implied intention of the amending Act. Proceedings initiated under Section 127(1) of the Act in view of the service of the notice on the respondent no.2-appropriate authority, in our view, would not be affected by the amended provisions unless they are intended to so affect, by express words or by necessary implication. It is not the case of the respondents that the amended provisions of Section 127(1) of the Act have, by express words or by necessary implication, retrospective operation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the judgment in the case of Girnar Traders (supra) that the underlying principle envisaged in Section 127 (1) of the Act is either to utilize the land for the purpose it is reserved in the plan in a given time or let the owner utilize the land for the purpose it is permissible under the town planning scheme. It is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that on a conjoint reading of the provisions of Section 126 and 127 of the Act, it is apparent that the legislative intent is to expeditiously acquire the land reserved under the town planning scheme. When a particular period is prescribed for taking effective steps for the acquisition of the land, the owner or person interested would be governed by the time frame that is provided at the time, when the service was effected, if the amended provisions are not retrospective. This Court has, in the case of Shantaram (supra), held that an independent right is accrued in favour of a person under the provisions of Section 127(1) of the Act, on the failure on the part of the appropriate authority to acquire the land within ten years from the publication of the final development plan. It was held that a legal right was accrued in favour of the petitioners in view of the inaction on the part of the appropriate authority to acquire the land within ten years from the date of publication of the final development plan and the petitioners therein were within their legal right to issue a purchase notice to the appropriate authority calling it to acquire the land. If a right is accrued to an owner or an interested person under Section 127 of the Act to secure his land on the expiry of twelve months from the date of service of the notice on the appropriate authority, the said right cannot be curtailed by the amended provisions of Section 127(1) of the Act that are not intended to operate retrospectively. A right conferred by a statute on a person serving the notice under Section 127(1) of the Act to seek a declaration of the deemed lapsing of the reservation on the expiry of a period of twelve months, if effective steps are not taken by the appropriate authority within twelve months, cannot be destroyed by the amending Act that enhances the period of twelve months to twenty four months unless the amending Act is retrospective. Dixon C.J. has succinctly formulated that “the general rule of the common law is that a statute changing the law ought not, unless the intention appears with reasonable certainty to be understood, has applied to facts or events that have already occurred in such a way as to confer or impose or otherwise affect rights or liabilities which the law has defined by reference to past events”. Had the petitioners served a notice on the respondent no.2 after the provisions of Section 127(1) were amended on 29.08.2015, the respondent no.2 would have been well within its right to take effective steps for the acquisition of the land within twenty four months. In our considered view, the amended provisions of Section 127(1) of the Act that extend the period for taking effective steps to twenty four months, as against twelve months, as provided by the unamended provisions would not be applicable to a matter where the owner or any person interested in the land has served a notice on the planning or the appropriate authority, as the case may be, before the amended provisions came into effect on 29.08.2015. Admittedly, since the respondents have not taken any effective steps for the acquisition of the land of the petitioners within twelve months from the service of the notice, dated 06.01.2015, the declaration as sought by the petitioners needs to be granted. 8. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. It is hereby declared that the reservation of the land of the petitioners admeasuring 0.54 Hectares, in Pusad, District Yavatmal, for primary school as per the final development plan, dated 26.07.1998 has lapsed and the petitioners are free to develop the land, as is permissible in the case of adjacent land, under the relevant development plan. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.