JUDGMENT : Sangitrao S. Patil, J. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the contesting parties, heard finally. 2. Admittedly, the land admeasuring 1 Hectare 65 Ares, out of Survey No. 4, situate within the municipal limits of Latur was reserved for playground and school in the development plan of Latur city, notified by the Urban Development Department of respondent No. 1 on 2nd January, 2002. It is further admitted that the respondents did not acquire the said land by agreement within a period of ten years from the date on which the said development plan was notified. Therefore, the petitioner served respondent No. 2-Collector and respondent No. 3-Latur Municipal Corporation with the notice dated 18th June, 2013 under section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 ("the Act" for short), calling upon them to take necessary steps for acquisition of the said land within a period of six months from the date of service of the said notice with a caution that in case no such steps are taken, the reservation shall be deemed to have been lapsed and the said land would be deemed to have been released from such reservation. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though respondent Nos. 3 and 4 accepted the above referred factual position as well as the receipt of the notice under section 127 of the Act, no steps were taken by them to acquire the land of the petitioner. Therefore, according to him, reservation in respect of the land of the petitioner would be deemed to have been lapsed, the said land would be deemed to have been released from such reservation and it would be available to the petitioner for the purpose of development or otherwise. In support of this contention, he cited judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Bhakti Vedanta Book Trust and Others, (2013) 4 SCC 676 and also some of the judgments of this Court on the same lines. 4. As seen from the reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4, after receiving the notice from the petitioner under section 127 of the Act, respondent No. 3 initiated proceedings for acquisition and forwarded the proposal to the Government. However, the acquisition could not take place as certain deficiencies were pointed out in the said proposal. 4. As seen from the reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4, after receiving the notice from the petitioner under section 127 of the Act, respondent No. 3 initiated proceedings for acquisition and forwarded the proposal to the Government. However, the acquisition could not take place as certain deficiencies were pointed out in the said proposal. It is further stated that the petitioner did not annex the relevant documents i.e. measurement map with the notice under section 127 of the Act and therefore, respondent No. 3 could not take steps for acquisition of the land of the petitioner. It is, therefore, prayed that the petition may be dismissed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited judgment in the case of Dattatraya Shamacharya Dharmadhikari and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others (Writ Petition No. 4823 of 2014), decided by this Court on 16th December, 2014 wherein the same ground was taken by the respondent authorities to nullify the effect of notice under section 127 (1) of the Act. It was held that section 127 (1) of the Act does not require enclosure of the map of the land proposed to be acquired along with the notice and therefore, insistence upon the said map is unsustainable. 6. In view of the above mentioned admitted facts as well as the legal position clarified by the above referred judgments, we are of the considered view that since no steps were taken by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for acquisition of the land of the petitioner within six months after receiving the notice under section 127 of the Act, the reservation in respect of the land of the petitioner shall be deemed to have been lapsed and the said land shall be deemed to be released from such reservation and shall become available to the petitioner for the purpose of development or otherwise. 7. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Petition Allowed.