As per case facts, the Petitioner's land was reserved for a Regional Transport Office under a revised development plan from 1992, and the initial 10-year period for acquisition expired in ... 2002. The Petitioner purchased the land in 2012 and later objected to a new draft development plan in 2013, but did not issue a purchase notice then. In 2015, the Petitioner issued a purchase notice. Subsequently, in 2016, the government sanctioned a partial revised development plan, which maintained the reservation, before the statutory 24-month period following the purchase notice expired. The Petitioner's application for development permission was later rejected, leading to this petition seeking a declaration that the reservation had lapsed. The question arose whether the sanction of a revised development plan, imposing a fresh reservation after the receipt of a purchase notice but before the statutory two-year period for acquisition lapses, would continue the reservation for another 10 years. Finally, the court concluded that no right for lapsing of reservation vests in the owner purely upon issuing a purchase notice until the mandatory 24 months from its service have passed. If a revised final development plan is implemented adhering to the statute, after receiving a purchase notice but before the 24-month period expires, the reservation continues for an additional 10 years, after which a fresh purchase notice can be issued. The court found that the Petitioner's writ petition seeking such a declaration was premature and without merit.