As per case facts, the Petitioners purchased land reserved for public purposes in a Development Plan since 1978. Despite issuing two purchase notices under Section 127 of the MRTP Act ... and waiting for over ten years, the Respondent-Council failed to acquire or develop the land. The Council contested the Petition, alleging the purchase notices were defective due to a lack of title documents and detailed property descriptions. The question arose whether the reservation lapsed by operation of law due to the Authority's inaction, and if the alleged defects in the purchase notice would prevent this lapsing. Finally, the Court held that the reservation is deemed to have lapsed when the planning authority fails to take acquisition steps within the prescribed period after a purchase notice. The authority cannot claim a defective notice as a defense when it has not taken any steps towards acquisition, as these documents are for facilitating title transfer, not for the lapsing of reservation.