Institutional knowledge and processing of a purchase notice by a Planning Authority satisfies Section 127 MRTP service requirements.

The Petitioners filed a PIL challenging a State communication dated 21.09.2015, which declared that reservations for public amenities (stadium, schools, etc.) on specific lands in Hingoli had lapsed under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act, 1966.

The subject property was originally owned by Usmanshahi Mills and later purchased by Respondent No. 5.

Respondent No. 5 issued a purchase notice on 04.02.2008, which the Municipal Council initially claimed was forged or never received.

However, the State later forwarded the notice to the Council, which deliberated on it in general body meetings but failed to initiate acquisition due to lack of funds.

Meanwhile, a second revised development plan came into force on 10.02.2019, providing for public amenities on alternative lands.

1. Whether the purchase notice requirement under Section 127 of the MRTP Act was satisfied despite the Municipal Council’s initial denial of service.

2. Whether the reservation lapsed automatically by operation of law due to the planning authority's failure to take statutory steps for acquisition.

3. Whether a PIL can compel the maintenance of reservation on specific lands after a statutory lapse and the implementation of a revised development plan.

The Court applied Section 127 of the MRTP Act, which stipulates that if a planning authority fails to acquire reserved land within the statutory period following a valid purchase notice, the reservation is "deemed to have lapsed".

It relied on *Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra* (2007) to establish that lapse is an automatic statutory consequence intended to prevent indefinite sterilization of private land.

Under *Shrirampur Municipal Council v. Satyabhamabai Bhimaji Dawkher* (2013), "steps" toward acquisition must be actual statutory declarations, not mere correspondence.

Additionally, *Perfect Machine Tools Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra* (2017) was cited for the principle that institutional knowledge and action upon a notice satisfy service requirements, even if the initial mode of service was technically informal.

The Court reasoned that while the Council initially disputed the 2008 notice, its subsequent institutional conduct—receiving the notice via the State, placing it before the General Body, and passing resolutions citing financial inability to acquire—proved "adequate notice" and "demonstrable knowledge".

Since the Council failed to take "steps" (actual acquisition proceedings) within the timeline, the lapse occurred by operation of law; the impugned communication was merely an administrative intimation of this statutory fact.

Regarding public interest, the Court observed that town planning is dynamic; since a second revised development plan (effective 2019) secured amenities elsewhere, the Petitioners could not legally insist on "freezing" the subject parcel forever.

Furthermore, Respondent No. 5 had already created third-party rights, and unsettling these transactions years later was deemed inequitable.

The Court refused to quash the communication dated 21.09.2015 and directed that ₹25,000 of the Petitioners' deposit be credited to the High Court Legal Services Authority.

All pending civil applications were disposed of.