JUDGMENT : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. Heard Shri A.A. Naik, learned Counsel for petitioners, Shri A. Chutke, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1 and Mrs. S.S. Jachak, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4. By their consent, Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal by issuing Rule, making the same returnable forthwith. 2. Expiry of period of 10 years; absence of any acquisition proceedings during said period; service of valid notice under Section 127[1] of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act and expiry of period of 12 months from this service, are the facts not in dispute. 3. Learned A.G.P. submits that he is still awaiting instruction. He points out that respondent nos. 2 to 4 claim that a proposal has been forwarded by them on 16.09.2015 to the Collector, Nagpur and no steps thereafter have been taken by the office of Collector. He therefore, states that Collector should have been joined as a party respondent. 4. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4 submits that as funds are required for acquisition and same are to be provided by the State Government, proposal has been sent to the office of the Collector. She further submits that as per Maharashtra Amendment Act No. XLII of 2015, dated 31.12.2015, Section 127[1] of the Act has been amended and waiting period of 12 months after service of a valid notice stipulated therein, has been raised to 24 months. 5. Here as the notice under Section 127[1] is dated 24.03.2015, before expiry of 12 months, the said period was extended and became 24 months. Petition therefore, could not have been filed before the expiry of period of 24 months and that period of 24 months has still not expired. 6. According to learned counsel for petitioners, after expiry of period of 10 years, without any acquisition, a right to issue notice accrues, and that right was exercised on 24.03.2015. On that date waiting period was only 12 months. Mere sending of proposal by respondent nos. 2 to 4 to Collector, Nagpur is therefore, not sufficient. He submits that judgment of Larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M/s. Girnar Traders .vrs. State of Maharashtra (2011 [3] SCC 1), covers this controversy. 7. He also relies upon Division Bench judgment of this Court in case of Vishnuvasant Developers and others .vrs. 2 to 4 to Collector, Nagpur is therefore, not sufficient. He submits that judgment of Larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M/s. Girnar Traders .vrs. State of Maharashtra (2011 [3] SCC 1), covers this controversy. 7. He also relies upon Division Bench judgment of this Court in case of Vishnuvasant Developers and others .vrs. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No.3904/2016 decided on 22.12.2016), to urge that there after hearing all concerned, contention that enlarged period shall apply to notice already issued under Section 127[1], has been negated after holding that the said amendment is prospective in operation. 8. After hearing the respective counsel we find that the requirement of waiting for 24 months has been prescribed on 31.12.2015 only. Till that date waiting period was 12 months, and hence, before that date a notice under Section 127[1], giving acquiring body time of more than 12 months to initiate steps for acquisition could not have been legally issued. Service of a valid notice is the point with reference to which “waiting period” is to be counted. Hence, notice duration is essential ingredient of the cause of action. The cause arises when such a notice is received by the planning authority. Hence, notice and time both cannot be severed from each other. Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 22.12.2016 has rightly found that the amended enhanced waiting period is, therefore, applicable only to notices under section 127[1] issued on or after 31.12.2015. 9. Here except for sending a proposal to the office of Collector, respondent nos. 2 to 4 have not taken any steps as envisaged in law which would lead to acquisition. As no steps are initiated, it is apparent that on the date on which present petition is filed, i.e. on 02.05.2016, the reservation had already lapsed. 10. Accordingly, we make Rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (A) and dispose of the Writ Petition. No costs.