JUDGMENT Arun R. Pedneker, J. - Present Writ Petitions are filed for a declaration that the reservation of the Petitioners' land of 0.74 Hector in District Beed, Maharashtra, for a public purpose under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred as 1966 Act') has lapsed and that the reserved land should be declared free for development. 2. The Petitioners in the Writ Petitions pray for the following reliefs:- ''c. By issuing a writ order of direction under Art. 226 of the constitution of India it be held and declared that, the reservation of the Survey no.87 at Taraf Giram in Beed to the extent of 74 R. owned by the petitioners in the development plan of Municipal council Beed has lapsed and the said land is released from the reservation and the land will be available to the petitioners for development. d. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Writ petition the respondent authorities be restrained for acquiring the land of the petitioner to the extent of 74 R. situated at Taraf Giram, Beed for any development purpose.'' 3. Heard Mr. S. S. Bora for the Petitioners, Mr. A. R. Kale, AGP for the Respondent/State and Mr. G. K. Naik Thigale, for the Respondent No.1, Municipal Council, Beed. 4. Facts leading to the filing of Writ Petitions can be summarized as under:- A. The development plan under the 1966 ACt of District Beed, State of Maharashtra was sanctioned vide Urban Development Department and Public Health Department Notification No. TPS-3373/52859/W-II-(b) dated 23.06.1975 and came into force from 16.08.1975. In the said development plan, the Petitioners land from Survey No.87 Taraf Giram (area of 2 Acres and 11 Gunthas i.e. 0.92 Hectors) was reserved for 'Post and Telegraph Department', bearing Site No.17. B. The development plan of Beed was revised and sanctioned by the State Government through it's Urban Development Department vide Notification No. TPS-3396/CR-180/96/UD-9 dated 08.09.1997 and came into force with effect from 15.10.1997. Certain portion of the excluded part of the earlier development plan was sanctioned vide Government Notification No. TPS-339/608/Cr-82(A)/99/UD-30, dated 10.05.2001. In the revised development plan (excluded part) dated 10.05.2001, the Petitioners land was reserved for 'Postal Department Quarter', as Site No.2 by reducing the area from 0.92 Hector to 0.74 Hector. The said revised development plan (excluded part) came into force from 01.07.2001. In the revised development plan (excluded part) dated 10.05.2001, the Petitioners land was reserved for 'Postal Department Quarter', as Site No.2 by reducing the area from 0.92 Hector to 0.74 Hector. The said revised development plan (excluded part) came into force from 01.07.2001. C. The Petitioners served purchase notice dated 29.06.2006 on the planning authority and also on the development authority under Section 127 of the 1966 Act. As no steps were taken by the authorites to acquire the reserved land within the stipulated period, the Petitioners filed Writ Petition No.4232 of 2008 for above mentioned reliefs. The Petitioners, thereafter, served another purchase notice under Section 127 of the 1966 Act on 17.03.2009. On completion of period mentioned in the purchase notice and as no steps were taken by the authorities to acquire the reserved land within the stipulated period, the Petitioners filed Writ Petition No.2260 of 2010 for the same reliefs mentioned above. 5. In the factual background above, the learned Counsel for Petitioners Mr. Bora, submits that the final development plan for Beed came into existence w.e.f. 16.08.1975 and the Petitioners land to the extent of 0.74 Hector continued to be under reservation for different public purposes for more than 47 years and the Petitioners have issued purchase notices under Section 127 of the 1966 Act. However, no steps for acquisition are taken till date by the Respondents/Authorities and thus the land be declared to be free from reservation and the Petitioners be permitted to develop the same. 6. Mr. Bora further submits that revised development plan (excluded part) was sanctioned on 10.05.2001 and even from this stage more than 21 years have lapsed but no steps are taken by the authorities for acquiring the Petitioners land under reservation. 7. The learned Counsel for Petitioners further submits that the purchase notice under Section 127 of the 1966 Act dated 17.03.2009 is issued prior to 13 years and till date no steps are taken for acquisition of the Petitioners land under reservation. 8. The learned Counsel for Petitioners further submit that the postal department does not require the reserved land and an unsuccessful attempt was also made to convert the reservation from postal department quarters to a garden which is also negatived by the State Government and thus this is a fit case for declaration of lapsing of reservation. 9. 8. The learned Counsel for Petitioners further submit that the postal department does not require the reserved land and an unsuccessful attempt was also made to convert the reservation from postal department quarters to a garden which is also negatived by the State Government and thus this is a fit case for declaration of lapsing of reservation. 9. The Petitioners rely upon the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of, Prafulla C. Dave and others Vs. Municipal Commissioner and others, (2015) 11 SCC 90 , Hasmukhrai V. Mehta Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2015) 3 SCC 154 and Chhabildas Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2018) 2 SCC 784 and the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Bhirulal (Bherulal) s/o Premchand Patil and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and two others, in Writ Petition No.195 of 2015, to contend that in the identical situation, where the land was reserved for prolonged period of time, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court has declared the reserved lands free from reservation and permitted the Petitioners therein to utilize their lands as per the provisions of the 1966 Act. 10. The learned Counsel for Respondents Mr. Thigale, in his reply submits that the revised development plan came into force from 15.10.1997 and excluded part came into force with effect from 01.07.2001. The Petitioners land is reserved under the revised development plan (excluded portion) which came into force on 01.07.2001. The Petitioners have served a purchase notice under Section 127 of the 1966 Act on 29.06.2006, and thereafter served a fresh purchase notice on 17.03.2009 i.e. before the expiry of 10 years from the date of sanction of the revised development plan (excluded part) and hence both the purchase notices of the Petitioners are pre-mature. 11. Mr. Thigale further submits that the aforesaid notices issued by the Petitioners are pre-mature and therefore no right of lapsing flows in favour of the Petitioners and that procedure under Section 50 of the 1966 Act can be followed for dereservation of land in the event that the reserved land is not required for public purpose for which it is designated/reserved. 12. The learned AGP Mr. 12. The learned AGP Mr. Kale, appearing for the Respondent/State submits that there can be no lapsing of reservation unless there is valid notice under Section 127 of the 1966 Act. He further submits that in absence of a valid notice and corresponding failure on the part of the authorities to take steps for acquisition, no right flows in favour of the Petitioners to utilise the lands free of reservation. 13. Thus from rival contentions the following Questions of Law arises for determination in this case:- A. In the event of purchase notice under Section 127 of the 1966 Act being served by the owners of the reserved land on the appropriate authority after the sanction of the revised development plan under Section 38 of the 1966 Act, whether the period of 10 years for issuance of notice under Section 127 of the 1966 Act should be computed from the date of the final development plan under Section 31 of the 1966 Act or from the date of the revised development plan coming into force under Section 38 of the 1966 Act ? B. In the present case, whether the purchase notices dated 29.06.2006 and 17.03.2009 issued under Section 127 of the 1966 Act are valid notices and whether there is lapsing of reservation as contemplated under Section 127 of the 1966 Act ? C. In the event of notices under Section 127 being premature or invalid, whether a prolonged reservation as in the instant case of 47 years entitles the Petitioners / owners of reserved land to seek a declaration from the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, that the reserved land is free from reservation and the owner is entitled to use the land as per the provision of the 1966 Act ? 14. In order to answer the aforesaid Questions of Law, we have examined the relevant provision of the 1966 Act. Sections 31, 38, 126 and 127 of the 1966 Act are relevant and read as under:- ''31. 14. In order to answer the aforesaid Questions of Law, we have examined the relevant provision of the 1966 Act. Sections 31, 38, 126 and 127 of the 1966 Act are relevant and read as under:- ''31. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, and not later than six months from the date of receipt of such plan from the Planning Authority, or as the case may be, from the said Officer, the State Government may, after consulting the Director of Town Planning by notification in the Official Gazette sanction the draft Development plan submitted to it for the whole area, or separately for any part thereof, either without modification, or subject to such modifications as it may consider proper, or return the draft Development plan to the Planning Authority, or as the case may be, the said Officer for modifying the plan as it may direct or refuse to accord sanction and direct the Planning Authority or the said Officer to prepare a fresh Development plan: Provided that, the State Government may, if it thinks fit, whether the said period has expired or not, extend from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, the period for sanctioning the draft Development plan or refusing to accord sanction thereto, by such futher period not exceeding,- (i) twenty-four months, in the aggregate, in case, the area of such Development plan falls in the jurisdiction of a Metropolitan Planning Committee constituted under the Maharashtra Metropolitan Planning Committee (Constitutions and Functions) (Continuance of Provisions) Act, 1999; (ii) twelve months, in the aggregate, in any other case, as may be specified in such notification: Provided further that, where the modifications proposed to be made by the State Government or submitted by the Planning Authority under Section 30 and proposed to be approved by the State Government without any further change are of a substantial nature with respect to the draft Development plan published under Section 26, the Government shall publish a notice in the Official Gazette and also in not less than two local newspapers inviting objections and suggestions from any person in respect of the proposed modifications within a period of one month, from the date of such notice: Provided also that, if the Government does not publish its decision by notification in the Official Gazette, regarding sanctioning the draft Development plan submitted to it, for the whole area, or separately for any part thereof, either without modification, or subject to such modifications as it may consider proper, or return the draft Development plan to the Planning Authority, or as the case may be, the said Officer for modifying the plan as it may direct or refuse to accord sanction and direct the Planning Authority or the said Officer to prepare a fresh Development plan, within the period under this section, such draft Development plan shall be deemed to have been sanctioned as submitted to the Government under Section 30, on the date immediately following the date of expiry of the period under this section: Provided also that, where any modification submitted by the Planning Authority or, as the case may be, the said Officer, under Section 30 is of substantial nature with respect to the draft Development plan published under Section 26, such modification shall not be deemed to have been sanctioned and the Government shall publish a notice regarding such modifications of substantial nature and the provisions relating to publication of the notice in the Official Gazette and two local newspapers for obtaining suggestions and objections as stipulated in the second proviso, shall apply. (2) The State Government may appoint an officer of rank not below that of a Group A officer and direct him to hear any such person in respect of such objections and suggestions and submit his report thereon to the State Government within one year from the date of publication of notice under second proviso to sub-section (1). (3) The State Government shall before according sanction to the draft Development plan take into consideration such objections and suggestions and the report of the officer: Provided that, the time-limits as provided in sub-sections (1) and (2) shall not apply for according sanction to the modifications published under sub-section (1): Provided further that, the Government shall take final decision regarding such modifications within one year from the date of receipt of the report from the officer appointed under sub-section (2). (4) The State Government shall fix in the notification under sub-section (1) a date not earlier than one month from its publication on which the final Development plan shall come into operation. (4A) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, delegate all the powers and functions under this section to the Director of Town Planning in such cases and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification. (5) If a Development plan contains any proposal for the designation of any land for a purpose specified in clauses (b) and (c) of Section 22, and if such land does not vest in the Planning Authority, the State Government shall not include that purpose in the Development Plan, unless it is satisfied that the Planning Authority will be able to acquire such land by private agreement or compulsory acquisition not later than ten years from the date on which the Development plan comes into operation. (6) A Development plan which has come into operation shall be called the 'final Development plan' and shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be binding on the Planning Authority. 38. (6) A Development plan which has come into operation shall be called the 'final Development plan' and shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be binding on the Planning Authority. 38. At least once in twenty years from the date on which a Development plan has come into operation, and where a Development plan is sanctioned in parts, then at least once in twenty years from the date on which the last part has come into operation, a Planning Authority may and shall at any time when so directed by the State Government, revise the Development plan (either wholly, or the parts separately) after carrying out, if necessary, fresh survey and preparing an existing-land- use map of the area within its jurisdiction, and the provisions of sections 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30 and 31 shall, so far as they can be made applicable, apply in respect of such revision of the Development plan. 126. 126. (1) Where after the publication of a draft Regional plan, a Development or any other plan or town planning scheme, any land is required or reserved for any of the public purposes specified in any plan or scheme under this Act at any time, the Planning Authority, Development Authority, or as the case may be, any Appropriate Authority may, except as otherwise provided in section 113A acquire the land,- (a) by agreement by paying an amount agreed to, or (b) in lieu of any such amount, by granting the land-owner or the lessee, subject, however, to the lessee paying the lessor or depositing with the Planning Authority, Development Authority or Appropriate Authority, as the case may be, for payment to the lessor, an amount equivalent to the value of the lessor's interest to be determined by any of the said Authorities concerned on the basis of the principles laid down in the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Floor Space Index (FSI) or Transferable Development Rights (TDR) against the area of land surrendered free of cost and free from all encumbrances, and also further additional Floor Space Index or Transferable Development Rights against the development or construction of the amenity on the surrendered land at his cost, as the Final Development Control Regulations prepared in this behalf provide, or (c) by making an application to the State Government for acquiring such land under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and the land (together with the amenity, if any so developed or constructed) so acquired by agreement or by grant of Floor Space Index or additional Floor Space Index or Transferable Development Rights under this section or under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as the case may be, shall vest absolutely free from all encumbrances in the Planning Authority, Development Authority, or as the case may be, any Appropriate Authority. (2) On receipt of such application, if the State Government is satisfied that the land specified in the application is needed for the public purpose therein specified, or if the State Government (except in cases falling under section 49 and except as provided in section 113A) itself is of opinion that any land included in any such plan is needed for any public purpose, it may make a declaration to that effect in the Official Gazette, in the manner provided in section 19 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, in respect of the said land. The declaration so published shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the said Act, be deemed to be a declaration duly made under the said section : Provided that, subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), no such declaration shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of publication of the draft Regional Plan, Development Plan or any other Plan, or Scheme, as the case may be. (3) On publication of a declaration under the said section 19, the Collector shall proceed to take order for the acquisition of the land under the said Act ; and the provisions of that Act shall apply to the acquisition of the said land with the modification that the market value of the land shall be,- (i) where the land is to be acquired for the purposes of a new town, the market value prevailing on the date of publication of the notification constituting or declaring the Development Authority for such town ; (ii) where the land is acquired for the purposes of a Special Planning Authority, the market value prevailing on the date of publication of the notification of the area as undeveloped area ; and (iii) in any other case, the market value on the date of publication of the interim development plan, the draft development plan or the plan for the area or areas for comprehensive development, whichever is earlier, or as the case may be, the date of publication of the draft Town Planning Scheme : Provided that, nothing in this subsection shall affect the date for the purpose of determining the market value of land in respect of which proceedings for acquisition commenced before the commencement of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (Second Amendment) Act, 1972 : Provided further that, for the purpose of clause (ii) of this sub-section, the market value in respect of land included in any undeveloped area notified under sub-section (1) of section 40 prior to the commencement of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (Second Amendment) Act, 1972, shall be the market value prevailing on the date of such commencement. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the proviso to sub-section (2) and sub-section (3), if a declaration, is not made, within the period referred to in sub-section (2) or having been made, the aforesaid period expired on the commencement of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (Amendment) Act, 1993, the State Government may make a fresh declaration for acquiring the land under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, in the manner provided by sub-sections (2) and (3) of this section, subject to the modification that the market value of the land shall be the market value at the date of declaration in the Official Gazette, made for acquiring the land afresh. 127. (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 twenty-four 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.'' It may be noted that the time prescribed under Section 127 for the authorities to take steps for acquisition is extended by amendments from Six Months to Twelve Months in the year 2009 and thereafter to Twenty Four Months in the year 2015 by amendment of Mah. 16 of 2009 and Mah. 42 of 2015, respectively. 15. 16 of 2009 and Mah. 42 of 2015, respectively. 15. Section 31(6) of the 1966 Act deals with sanction of a development plan, called as the final Development Plan. Section 38 deals with Revision of Development plan. Sections 125 to 127 deals with land acquisition of the lands reserved under the development plan for public purposes and Section 128 deals with the power of the State Government to acquire land for public purpose other than the one for which it is designated in 23 any plan or scheme. Section 126 of the 1966 Act deals with acquisition of land required for public purposes in specified plans while Section 127 of the 1966 Act deals with lapsing of reservation. Here we are particularly concerned with Section 127 of the 1966 Act. 16. The scope of Section 127 of the 1966 Act has come up for consideration in various Judgments of the Hon'ble High Court and the Apex Court. In case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Dr. Hakimwadi Tenants' Association and others reported in 1988 (Supp) SCC 55, the Hon'ble Apex Court while examining the scope of Section 127 of the 1966 Act has held that Sub-Section (1) Section 127 of 1966 Act is a fetter upon the power of the State of eminent domain. By enacting Section 127 the legislature has struck a balance between the competing claims of the interests of the general public and as regards the rights of an individual. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hakimwadi's case has further held that, whether the reservation has lapsed due to the failure of the Planning Authority to take any steps within a stipulated period of the service of the purchase notice, is a mixed question of fact and law. 17. In the case of Girnar Traders Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2007) 7 SCC 555 , the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the implicit applicability of the land acquisition Act to the acquisition proceedings under the 1966 Act examined the scope of the provisions of Section 126 and 127 of the 1966 Act and held as under:- ''31. Section 127 prescribes two time periods. Section 127 prescribes two time periods. First, a period of 10 years within which the acquisition of the land reserved, allotted or designated has to be completed by agreement from the date on which a regional plan or development plan comes into force, or the proceedings for acquisition of such land under the MRTP Act or under the LA Act are commenced. Secondly, if the first part of Section 127 is not complied with or no steps are taken, then the second part of Section 127 will come into operation, under which a period of six months is provided from the date on which the notice has been served by the owner within which the land has to be acquired or the steps as aforesaid are to be commenced for its acquisition. The six-month period shall commence from the date the owner or any person interested in the land serves a notice on the planning authority, development authority or appropriate authority expressing his intent claiming dereservation of the land. If neither of the things is done, the reservation shall lapse. If there is no notice by the owner or any person interested, there is no question of lapsing reservation, allotment or designation of the land under the development plan. Second part of Section 127 stipulates that the reservation of the land under a development scheme shall lapse if the land is not acquired or no steps are taken for acquisition of the land within the period of six months from the date of service of the purchase notice. The word 'aforesaid' in the collocation of the words 'no steps as aforesaid are commenced for its acquisition' obviously refers to the steps contemplated by Section 126 of the MRTP Act. 32. If no proceedings as provided under Section 127 are taken and as a result thereof the reservation of the land lapses, the land shall be released from reservation, allotment or designation and shall be available to the owner for the purpose of development. The availability of the land to the owner for the development would only be for the purpose which is permissible in the case of adjacent land under the relevant plan. The availability of the land to the owner for the development would only be for the purpose which is permissible in the case of adjacent land under the relevant plan. Thus, even after the release, the owner cannot utilise the land in whatever manner he deems fit and proper, but its utilisation has to be in conformity with the relevant plan for which the adjacent lands are permitted to be utilised. 54. When we conjointly read Sections 126 and 127 of the MRTP Act, it is apparent that the legislative intent is to expeditiously acquire the land reserved under the Town Planning Scheme and, therefore, various periods have been prescribed for acquisition of the owner's property... 56. 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...'' 18. In the case of Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and others Vs. Vasant Mahadev Patil (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and others, (2022) 5 SCC 758 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under, ''39. Therefore, as such once the reservation with respect to the land in question was deemed to have lapsed as observed hereinabove, no further writ of mandamus could have been issued by the High Court to acquire the land and thereafter pay the compensation to the landowners, as on the lapse of the reservation, the land in question is free from reservation and the landowners can use it as if there is no reservation, however, subject to the provisions of the MRTP Act.'' 19. In the above case of Kolhapur Municipal Corporation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that once the reservation lapses there can be no direction by the High Court to acquire the reserved land. 20. In the case primarily relied upon by the Petitioners, of Hasmukhrai V. Mehta Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the provisions of Section 49 read with Section 127 of the 1966 Act. The facts in the Hasmukhrai's case are recorded at paras 2, 3 and 4, as under, ''2. 20. In the case primarily relied upon by the Petitioners, of Hasmukhrai V. Mehta Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the provisions of Section 49 read with Section 127 of the 1966 Act. The facts in the Hasmukhrai's case are recorded at paras 2, 3 and 4, as under, ''2. In brief, the factual matrix of the case is that the appellant Hasmukhrai Vanmalidas Mehta owns land in Survey No. 16, Hissa No. 3 and Survey No. 18, Hissa No. 4, situated in Village Sheel, Taluka Khopoli, District Raigad in the State of Maharashtra. On 14-2-1990, he applied to the Planning Authority seeking permission to carry out development of land with necessary documents as required under Section 44 of the MRTP Act. The appellant was granted permission and issued commencement certificate dated 3-4-1990 by Respondent 4 (Chief Officer, Khopoli Municipal Council) under Section 45 of the said Act read with Section 89(4) of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965. The Development Plan of Khopoli Municipal Council was sanctioned by the Government, vide Order No. TPS/1476/32/UD-5 dated 17-12-1976. It is pleaded on behalf of the appellant that the land in question, belonging to the appellant, was included in the residential zone in the sanctioned plan of 15-1-1977. It is further pleaded that on 15-7-1991, the Chief Town Planning Officer granted 'no-objection certificate' for utilisation of the land for non-agricultural purpose. From the communication dated 15-7-1991, made by Respondent 4 it is revealed that the Development Plan for residential purpose was sanctioned, and commencement certificate was issued by him on 19-6-1992 for construction. Development charges amounting Rs 1,92,490 were also recovered from the appellant by getting served notice dated 31-7-1998, for use of land for residential purpose. 3. However, on 14-1-1999 the appellant was informed by Respondent 4 that a fresh development scheme of Khopoli Town has been prepared which includes the appellant's Surveys Nos. 16/3 and 18/4 as a part of land reserved for Agriculture Produce Market Yard (for short 'APM Yard') and for truck terminal. Reacting to it, on 17-8-2000 the appellant served a purchase notice under Section 49 of the MRTP Act as the land in question was already in the sanctioned plan left in 1977 for residential purposes. 16/3 and 18/4 as a part of land reserved for Agriculture Produce Market Yard (for short 'APM Yard') and for truck terminal. Reacting to it, on 17-8-2000 the appellant served a purchase notice under Section 49 of the MRTP Act as the land in question was already in the sanctioned plan left in 1977 for residential purposes. In reply to this, Director, Town Planning, vide his communication dated 16-3-2001, though confirmed receiving of the purchase notice, but directed the appellant to contact APMC, Khopoli. The Director, Town Planning wrote a separate letter to the Chief Officer of Municipal Council of Khopoli that the proceedings of land acquisition for APM Yard be initiated within one year from 16-3-2001 failing which it would amount to release of the land from the reservation for APM Yard. 4. Consequently, Khopoli Municipal Council wrote a letter on 23-4-2001 to APMC to immediately initiate acquisition proceedings and to act on purchase notice served by the appellant. The appellant himself wrote a letter to Respondent 5 (APMC) requesting for initiation of acquisition proceedings. Another letter was sent on 6-7-2001 by Respondent 4 to Respondent 5 calling upon it to take necessary steps for acquisition of the appellant's land. However, no steps were taken for one year i.e. by 15-3-2001. Respondent 4 again reminded Respondent 5 between September 2001 to March 2002 to complete the acquisition proceedings. When nothing was done, the appellant again on 5-7- 2002 sought revalidation of the permission for construction earlier allowed to him. After running from pillar to post, the appellant made a representation dated 13-2- 2003 to the Secretary, Urban Development, Government of Maharashtra, on the above issue, but to no avail. Ultimately, the appellant filed a writ petition in February 2004 complaining that the respondents are neither acquiring the land belonging to the appellant nor releasing the same from reservation for APM Yard, and sought necessary directions from the High Court.'' 21. At Paragraph No.15, of Hasmukhrai's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded as under, ''15. Ultimately, the appellant filed a writ petition in February 2004 complaining that the respondents are neither acquiring the land belonging to the appellant nor releasing the same from reservation for APM Yard, and sought necessary directions from the High Court.'' 21. At Paragraph No.15, of Hasmukhrai's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded as under, ''15. In view of the principle of law laid down by this Court, as above, we are of the view that in the present case since neither have steps been taken by the authorities concerned for acquisition of the land, nor is the land of the appellant purchased under purchase notice, nor is he allowed to use the land for the last more than twenty years, the land will have to be released as the appellant cannot be deprived from utilising his property for an indefinite period.'' 22. The Petitioners further relied upon the Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhirulal (Bherulal) s/o Premchand Patil and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and two others (supra) decided on 15.12.2016, wherein this Court has held as under, ''10] In the present case, the property of the petitioners is under reservation since 1983. In the year 1983, writ land is shown reserved as open space and in the revised development plan in the year 1993 for the purpose of garden. Purchase notice is given in the year 1999. The Assistant Director, Town Planning, had also written letter to the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council asking the Municipal Council to send the proposal for acquisition within six months. The said letter/proposal is also not disputed. Even the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council communicated the petitioners that as the proposal has already been sent to the Collector, the notice u/s 127 would not be binding. Even if we assume notice u/s 127 was issued after six years and before completion of 10 years, however, it would appear that as on now more than 17 years have lapsed and no steps are taken for acquisition. On the contrary, readiness is shown by the Corporation to award TDR in lieu of compensation for the said land. The land of the petitioners is under reservation since 1983 i.e. for more than 33 years. The said land is not used for the purpose for which it is reserved nor the petitioners are permitted to develop it. On the contrary, readiness is shown by the Corporation to award TDR in lieu of compensation for the said land. The land of the petitioners is under reservation since 1983 i.e. for more than 33 years. The said land is not used for the purpose for which it is reserved nor the petitioners are permitted to develop it. Even after revised development plan came into force, 23 years have lapsed. Notice has been issued 17 years back. Even accepting that notice could be issued after 10 years of the revised development plan and steps for acquisition are required to be taken within one year of notice u/s 127, still in the present case, 17 years have lapsed after issuance of notice u/s 127 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act and as yet, no steps are initiated for acquisition of the writ land. Section 127 of the MRTP Act is a fetter on the powers of eminent domain. Considering the inaction on the part of the respondents in not acquiring the writ property nor taking any steps for acquisition for a period of 17 years even after issuance of notice u/s 127 of the MRTP Act, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Hasmukhrai, referred to supra, would be squarely applicable. 11] In the result, we hold and decide that reservation of land for the purpose of park/garden of Survey No.484/5A situated at Mehrun Tq. & Dist.Jalgaon owned by the petitioners has lapsed and the same is released from reservation. Consequential acts be performed accordingly. Writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.'' 23. Thus in absence of a valid notice, under Section 127 of the 1966 Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hasmukhrai (supra) and the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in case of Bhirulal (supra), declared the reserved land, free from reservation on account of the lands being under reservation for a very long period of time and no steps being taken by the authorities to acquire the same. 24. In the case of Prafulla C. Dave and others Vs. 24. In the case of Prafulla C. Dave and others Vs. Municipal Commissioner and others (supra), which was decided on the same date as of Hasmukhrai (supra), the question that arose for determination is whether the plan first prepared and notified under Section 21 of the 1966 Act is the final development plan and the plan prepared under Section 38 is only a revision of the final development plan proposed under Section 21 of the Act and as such, the notice contemplated under Section 127 of the Act and the period prescribed is from the publication of the development plan first notified under Section 21 and not the revised development plan under Section 38 of the 1966 Act. 25. While considering the above issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case of Prafulla Dave (supra) has held as under:- ''...Section 127 of the MRTP Act or any other provision of the said Act does not provide for automatic lapsing of the acquisition, reservation or designation of the land included in any development plan on the expiry of ten years. On the contrary, upon expiry of the said period of ten years, the landowner or the person interested is mandated by the statute to take certain positive steps i.e. to issue/serve a notice and there must occur a corresponding failure on the part of the authority to take requisite steps as demanded therein in order to bring into effect the consequences contemplated by Section 127. What would happen in a situation where the landowner or the person interested remains silent and in the meantime a revised plan under Section 38 comes into effect is not very difficult to fathom. Obviously, the period of ten years under Section 127 has to get a fresh lease of life of another ten years. To deny such a result would amount to putting a halt on the operation of Section 38 and rendering the entire of the provisions with regard to preparation and publication of the revised plan otiose and nugatory...It is, therefore, clear that the lapsing of the reservation, allotment or designation under Section 127 can happen only on the happening of the contingencies mentioned in the said section. If the landowner or the person interested himself remains inactive, the provisions of the Act dealing with the preparation of revised plan under Section 38 will have full play. If the landowner or the person interested himself remains inactive, the provisions of the Act dealing with the preparation of revised plan under Section 38 will have full play. Action on the part of the landowner or the person interested as required under Section 127 must be anterior in point of time to the preparation of the revised plan. Delayed action on the part of the landowner, that is, after the revised plan has been finalised and published will not invalidate the reservation, allotment or designation that may have been made or continued in the revised plan... ''10. ... If there is no such notice by the owner or any person, there is no question of the reservation, allotment or designation of the land under a development plan of having lapsed. It a fortiori follows that in the absence of a valid notice under Section 127, there is no question of the land becoming available to the owner for the purpose of development or otherwise.'' 26. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Prafulla Dave (supra), i.e. in the event of notice under Section 127 of the 1966 Act being served by the owner of the reserved land on the appropriate authority after the revised plan comes into effect, the time of 10 years prescribed under Section 127 of the 1966 Act should be counted from the date of the revised development plan under Section 38 of the 1966 Act comes into force. Thus, we answer the first Question of Law raised at Paragraph No.13(A) of this Judgment accordingly. 27. We now deal with the issue framed at Paragraph No.13(B). In the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Dr. Hakimwadi Tenants' Association and others (supra), Prafulla C. Dave and others Vs. Municipal Commissioner and others (supra) and Girnar Traders Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared that the lapsing of reservation takes place only after a valid notice under Section 127 of the 1966 Act. Dr. Hakimwadi Tenants' Association and others (supra), Prafulla C. Dave and others Vs. Municipal Commissioner and others (supra) and Girnar Traders Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared that the lapsing of reservation takes place only after a valid notice under Section 127 of the 1966 Act. Unless a valid notice as contemplated under Section 127 of the 1966 Act is issued and there is corresponding failure on the part of authorities to take steps to acquire the reserved land, there is no lapsing of reservation and no consequent right flows to the owner of the land on account of the fact that the land continues to be under reservation for a long period of time. The owner of the land reserved for public purpose is required to issue notice under Section 127 of the 1966 Act after lapse of 10 years from the date of reservation in the development plan or a revised development plan as the case may be and until it is so issued by the owner with corresponding failure of the authorities, there is no lapsing of reservation. 28. In the instant case, although the development plan for Beed was sanctioned in the year 1975, no purchase notice was issued by the owner of the land when the development pland was in force. In the revised development plan sanctioned in the year 2001, the Petitioners land to the extent of 0.74 Hector continued to be under reservation for a different public purpose. In the case of Prafulla C. Dave and others Vs. Municipal Commissioner and others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specified that a fresh notice under Section 127 is contemplated after the revised development plan comes into force. The Petitioners served first purchase notice on 29.06.2006 and subsequent notice on 17.03.2009. The reservation under the revised development plan came into force from 2001, and thus both the aforesaid purchase notices were within 10 years of the revised development plan and thus both the notices are pre-mature and there is no lapsing of reservation of the reserved land, under Section 127 of the 1966 Act. 29. We hold that the notices dated 29.06.2006 and 17.03.2009 are premature and invalid in terms of Section 127 of the 1966 Act and thus there is no lapsing of reservation under Section 127 of the 1966 Act. 29. We hold that the notices dated 29.06.2006 and 17.03.2009 are premature and invalid in terms of Section 127 of the 1966 Act and thus there is no lapsing of reservation under Section 127 of the 1966 Act. The Second Question of Law raised at Paragraph No.13 is answered accordingly. 30. Now, coming to the final Question of Law raised at Paragraph No. 13(C), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhabildas (supra), has observed that the Supreme Court in Hasmukhrai's case had exercised powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, declaring the reserved land, free from reservation although there was no valid notice under Section 127 of the 1966 Act. 31. In the case of Chhabildas Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra) decided in the year 2018, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering Hasmukhrai's (supra) case has observed as under, ''...However, on the facts of that case, no purchase notice under Section 127 was issued after 10 years had elapsed from the date of publication of the requisite plan. This being the case, we read the judgment as having allowed a lapse to take place, in view of the inordinately long delay of over 20 years, by really doing complete justice on the facts of that case under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.'' 32. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chhabildas's case exercised powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to release the lands from acquisition and held as under, ''30. In the present case, 15 years have passed since the date of publication of the development plan, and over 10 years have passed since the date of the purchase notice issued under Section 49. Considering the fact that there has been no stay at any stage by any court, it is clear that an inordinately long period of time has elapsed, both since the date of publication of the development plan, as well as the date of the purchase notice served under Section 49. No doubt, the letter of 26-9-2008 shows that an application was made within the requisite time period to acquire the aforesaid land. However, on the facts of this case, since after the aforesaid letter nothing has been done to acquire the appellant's property, we are of the view that the reservation contained in the development plan as well as acquisition proposal have lapsed. However, on the facts of this case, since after the aforesaid letter nothing has been done to acquire the appellant's property, we are of the view that the reservation contained in the development plan as well as acquisition proposal have lapsed. We make it clear that we hold this in order to do complete justice between the parties under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. However, in all future cases that may arise under the provisions of Section 49, the drill of Section 127 must be followed i.e. that after 10 years have elapsed from the date of publication of the relevant plan, a second purchase notice must be served in accordance with the provisions of Section 127, in order that lapsing can take place under the aforesaid section. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.'' 33. This Court in the case of Bhirulal (supra), relying upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hasmukrai (supra) has declared the reserved lands free from reservation on account of prolonged reservation and no steps being taken by the authorities to acquire the lands although there was no valid notice under Section 127 of the 1966 Act. 34. However, as noticed in the case of Chhabildas (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hasmukhrai's case has exercised powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to declare the lands free from reservation in absence of a valid notice under Section 127 of the 1966 Act. In the case of Prafulla C. Dave (supra) and Chhabildas (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court exercised powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to declare reserved land free from reservation in absence of a valid notice under Section 127 of the 1966 Act on account of prolonged reservation of land and no steps being taken by the authorities to acquire the reserved land. 35. However, the High Court does not have powers akin to Article 142 of the Constitution of India and thus respectfully we cannot apply the judgment of this Court in the case of Bhirurlal (supra) to the facts of the present case and declare the Petitioners land free from reservation on account of prolonged reservation of 47 years and no steps being taken by the authorities to acquire the Petitioners land. 36. 36. Since we are not in agreement with the Judgment of this Court in the case of Bhirulal (supra), we refer these matters to a larger bench to consider the issue, 'whether the High Court can lawfully declare lands reserved for a public purpose, under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 for an inordinate long period of time, free from reservation in absence of a valid notice under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 ?'' 37. Let the Registry place these matters before the Hon'ble The Chief Justice, for appropriate orders.