Kamal Khata JUDGMENT
Kamal Khata, J.
1. Rule. Respondents waive service. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to issue a notification in the Official Gazette as per Section 127(2) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 ("MRTP Act") that the reservation for a 'Stadium' on the Petitioners' land has lapsed and the said land is available to the Petitioners to develop.
3. The Petitioners are the sons of one Sadashiv Bolkote ("Petitioners"). They as owners are in possession of Site No. 13/55 new survey No. 33/1(Pt), having old survey No. 238/1, situated at Bolkote Nagar, Taluka North Solapur, District Solapur admeasuring 14150 sq. mtrs.
4. The State of Maharashtra, through the Principal Secretary Urban Development Department, is arrayed as Respondent No.1 as it exercises powers and functions, under the provisions of Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act 1966 ("MRTP Act") to issue the notification sought. The Municipal Corporation of Solapur, which is the planning authority under Section 2(19) of the MRTP Act, is Respondent No.2, and the Director and Assistant Director of Town Planning are Respondent Nos 3 and 4 respectively.
5. By a Notification dated 28th October 2004, the Respondent No. 1 sanctioned the Development Plan for the city of Solapur under Section 31(1) of the MRTP Act which came into effect from 15th December 2004. By the said Notification, the said land was reserved for the purposes of 'Stadium' bearing reservation site No. 13/55.
6. The Petitioners contend that the Respondents did not acquire the land within a period of 10 years of the sanctioned development plan. That 10-year period expired on 15th December 2014. Therefore, on 8th July 2019, the Petitioners issued a notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act calling on the Respondents to take steps for acquisition and notified the Respondents that the reservation would stand lapsed on failure. The documents, namely, the 7/12 extracts of the said land along with the demarcation plan, were attached for their ready reference. That the purchase notice was duly received by Respondent No. 1 on 3rd August 2019 is not disputed.
7. By its response dated 17th June 2019, the Respondent No. 1 pointed out defects in the purchase notice to the Petitioners. The defects according to the Respondents was that the purchase notice issued through the Advocate did not attach his Vakalatnama and the original measurement plan as also the zone certificate of the said land. The Respondents also required documents showing approval and/or rejection of any permission by the competent authorities. According to the Respondents they would not proceed with the Petitioners application under Section 126 of the MRTP Act until the requisitions were complied.
8. There was an exchange of communications between the Petitioners and Respondents whereby the Respondents contended that the Petitioners had not complied with the requisitions and the Petitioners contended that all original relevant documents as required by law were tendered. Further, the Respondents called upon the Petitioners to make an application for TDR in the prescribed format whilst the Petitioners refused and asked them to acquire the land for compensation.
9. Mr. Deshmukh for the Petitioners submitted that the 24 months statutor........