Disposed

Mariyam Begum Abdul Jalil Khan and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC20 Mar 2018WP/5312/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Garden de-reservation was refused because the purchase notice lacked title documents. The court directed public-garden use, initiation of acquisition within six months and completion within one year thereafter, with compensation to legitimate persons. Ownership was left open, and interim construction protection continued for four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Public-garden use directed; acquisition to begin within six months and finish within one year thereafter, with compensation to legitimate persons. Construction protection extended four weeks.

Mariyam Begum Abdul Jalil Khan and Others Vs the… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

( 1 )

¶2

wp5312.16

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.5312 OF 2016

¶5

1. Mariyam Begum Abdul Jalil Khan .. Petitioners Age-70 years, Occu-Household, R/o.[CTS No.6671/1] H.No.1-24-53/P, Rohila Galli, Aurangabad Dist. Aurangabad

¶6

2. Mrs.Zakia Begum W/o. Mohd. Habib Khan Age-57 years, Occu-Household, R/o. [CTS no.6671/2] H.No.1-24-53/P, Rohila Galli, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad

¶7

3. Irshad Mohd. Khan Shamshad Khan Age-68 years, Occu-Pensioner, R/o. [CTS no.6671/3] H.No.1-24-53/P, Rohila Galli, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad

¶8

4. Smt.Nasim Bagum W/o. Masosod Khan Age-45 years, Occu-Household, R/o. [CTS No.6671/4] H.No.1-24-53/P, Rohila Galli, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad

¶9

5. Shaikh Irfan S/o. Shaikh Amin Age-33 years, Occu-Business, R/o. [CTS No.6671/5 & 6] H.No.1-24-53/P, Rohila Galli, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad

¶10

6. Shaikh Osman S/o. Shaikh Amin Age-50 years, Occu-Business, R/o. [CTS No.6671/6] H.No.1-24-53/P,

¶11

( 2 ) wp5312.16

¶12

Rohila Galli, Aurangabad,
Dist. Aurangabad

¶13

7. Mohd. Jafar S/o. Mohd. Ayyub Age-50 years, Occu-Business, R/o. [CTS No.6671/7] H.No.1-24-53/P, Rohila Galli, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad

¶14

8. Syed Rashiduddin S/o. Syed Abidulla Qadri Age-66 years, Occu-Business, R/o. [CTS No.6671/8] H.No.1-24-53/P, Rohila Galli, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad

¶15

9. Ibrahim Khan S/o. Ahmed Khan Age-40 years, Occu-Business, R/o. [CTS No.6671/9] H.No.1-24-53/P, Rohila Galli, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad

¶16

10. Amanatullah Khan S/o. Sadullah Khan Age-72 years, Occu-Business, R/o. [CTS No.6671/10] H.No.1-24-53/P, Rohila Galli, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad

¶17

11. Manzoor Khan S/o. Mustafa Khan Age-38 years, Occu-Business, R/o. [CTS No.6671/18] H.No.1-24-53/P, Rohila Galli, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad

¶18

12. Smt.Tesneem Fatema W/o. Gazanfar Ali Age-50 years, Occu-Teacher, R/o. [CTS No.6671/19] H.No.1-24-53/P, Rohila Galli, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad

¶19

( 3 )

¶20

wp5312.16

¶21

13. Syed Gulam Jeelani S/o. Syed Gulam Sofi Age-65 years, Occu-Pensioner, R/o. [CTS No.6671/20] H.No.1-24-53/P, Rohila Galli, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad

¶22

14. Shaikh Mohd. Iqbal S/o. Shaikh Amir Age-65 years, Occu-Pensioner, R/o. [CTS No.6671/20] H.No.1-24-53/P, Rohila Galli, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad

¶23

15. Smt.Anisa Anjum W/o. Syed Afzaluddin Age-40 years, Occu-Household, R/o. [CTS No.6671/20] H.No.1-24-53/P, Rohila Galli, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad

¶24

16. Mohd. Rafiq S/o. Haji Baba Age-59 years, Occu-Business, R/o. [CTS No.6671/23] H.No.1-24-53/P, Rohila Galli, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad

¶25

17. Mohd. Farooq S/o. Abdul Razzak Age-45 years, Occu-Business, R/o. [CTS No.6671/23 & 24] H.No.1-24-53/P, Rohila Galli, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad

¶26

18. Majeed Khan S/o. Mustafa Khan Age-36 years, Occu-Private Service, R/o. [CTS No.6671/24] H.No.1-24-53/P, Rohila Galli, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad

¶27

( 4 ) wp5312.16

¶28

19. Mohd. Munir S/o. Mohd. Yakub Siddiqui Age-61 years, Occu-Business, R/o. [CTS No.6671/24] H.No.1-24-53/P, Rohila Galli, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad VERSUS

¶29

1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Through Secretary, W.B.D.B. Department, Mumbai

¶30

2. The Director, Town Planning, Maharashtra State Office at Pune

¶31

3. Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad through Municipal Commissioner, Aurangabad

¶32

4. The Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad

¶33

5. The Collector, Collector Office, Aurangabad

¶34

Mr.R.R.Mantri, Advocate h/f Mr.Zia-Ul Mustafa, Advocate
for the petitioners
Mr.P.S.Patil, AGP for respondent Nos.1,2 and 5
Mr.J.R.Shah, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 & 4
Mr.D.S.Bharuka, Advocate for applicant in CA No.3935/17

¶35

( 5 ) wp5312.16

¶36

CORAM :S.V. GANGAPURWALA & S.M. GAVHANE, JJ.

¶37

RESERVED ON :24.11.2017

¶38

PRONOUNCED ON :20.03.2018

¶39

J U D G M E N T [PER: S.M. GAVHANE, J.] :-

¶40

.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the
consent of the parties the writ petition is taken up for
final hearing.

¶41

2.By this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India the petitioners seek declarations
as per prayers in Clause “B” to “E” that their properties
mentioned in Para No.1 of the petition (which are
referred in detail later on) as de-reserved, that the
reservation of garden in development plan has been lapsed
as against the petitioners regarding their properties,
that their properties are free properties and can be
developed by them in accordance with law and respondents
cannot claim any reservation thereon, and that the orders
of the respondents making the houses of the petitioners
reserved for the purposes of garden be declared as null
and void and illegal and further claimed to cancel the
same in terms of Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional
Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
MRTP, Act)

¶42

3.The City Survey Nos. [P.R. card Nos.]
6671/01,6671/2,.6671/3,6671/4,6671/5 & 6, 6671/5 & 6,
6671/6, 6671/7, 6671/8, 6671/10, 6671/18, 6671/19,
6671/20, 6671/20, 6671/20, 6671/20, 6671/23, 6671/23 &
24, 6671/24 and 6671/24 with houses thereon, situated
within limits of Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad, which
are respectively in the names of the petitioners as per
sequence of their names in the petition, as described in
para No.1 of the petition (hereinafter referred to as
'the subject properties') are the properties of the
petitioners'.

¶43

4.According to the petitioners they are residing
in the subject properties since long and prior to them
their ancestors and predecessors-in-title were residing
there. The said area is densely populated area having
residential locality. The petitioners' houses have been
given Municipal House Numbers by respondent No.3
Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad. The Municipal
Corporation, the then Municipal Council, Aurangabad and
earlier local authority have provided facilities like
water supply, sewage and even drainage to the subject
properties. The petitioners have either repaired, re-
developed even re-constructed, either with due permission

¶44

or with the knowledge of the Municipal Corporation,
Aurangabad, then Municipal Council, then local body, the
subject properties.

¶45

5.The petitioners have contended that as per
development plan of Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad
area of 'the subject properties' was reserved for garden
purpose and later on it was removed from the reservation.
Subsequently again in the year 2001 it was included in
the reservation for garden by publishing revised
development plan dated 18.11.2001 which was published
vide notification dated 17.08.2002.The town planning
authority is not able to acquire the subject properties
by private agreement or compulsory acquisition within 10
years of development plan. No public notices were
given/issued to the petitioners and others and they were
not heard. The development plan and the revised
development plan appeared to be passed illegally and
without following due procedure, behind back of the
petitioners. The petitioners had issued notices to the
respondents calling upon to consider their case for
deletion of reservation of garden facility and to de-
reserve their houses therefrom. But they did not de-
reserve the same.

¶46

6.In the above circumstances the petitioners on
29.09.2014 issued purchase notice (Exh.F) under Section
127 of the MRTP, Act (hereinafter referred to as the
purchase notice) to respondent No.2 Municipal
Corporation, Aurangabad, respondent No.4 the Commissioner
of Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad and the Town
Planning Authority of the Municipal Corporation,
Aurangabad by RPAD and also said notice was given by hand
to said authorities. The respondent authorities received
the purchase notice on the same day, as per endorsement
of the office of the respondents on the office copy of
the purchase notice. The purchase notice by RPAD was
served on the respondents on 30.09.2014. In spite of
service of the purchase notice the respondents did not
purchase the subject properties and did not take any
steps for the same and therefore, after lapse of one year
of service of the purchase notice on the respondents the
subject properties are deemed to be de-reserved as the
purchase notice has not been complied in accordance with
the provision of Section 127 of the MRTP Act within
stipulated period by the respondents.

¶47

7.By amending the petition the petitioners have
contended that under Section 127 of the MRTP, Act apart
from owner even a person interested in the land can serve

¶48

the notice. There is no dispute that the petitioners are
the persons who have interest in the subject properties.
In fact, there can be no dispute about title of each of
the petitioners to the respective plots/properties.
Subject property was owned by Mohammad Abdul Sattar Khan
etc., who sold it to Sadulla Khan S/o. Naser Khan on
20.10.1944, fasli, by registered sale deed for
Rs.2,200/-. In or about 1970 the work of City Survey was
undertaken and Sadulla Khan appears to have died by that
time and his sons Abdul Khan etc were present at that
time of enquiry by City Survey. This property was given
Chalta No.158, Municipal No.1-16-17, area 4711.09 sq.
mts. and was given final City Survey No.6671. The
respective petitioners have purchased part of the said
property by registered sale deed. The said survey No.6671
then recorded as House No.1-24-53 was permitted to be
sub-divided into several plots by the erstwhile Municipal
Council on 03.07.1979. Thus, the petitioners are title
holders. They have been residing for years together by
constructing their houses and as such apart from being
owners, they are persons interested. It is contended that
merely because the subject properties are designated in
the development plan for garden etc, it does not divest
title of the petitioners as owners of the said subject
properties, nor it automatically vest in the planning

¶49

authority/corporation. Its acquisition as per law and
payment of compensation can only divest title of the
owners.

¶50

8.The petitioners further contended that the
subject property Plot No.6671/1 belongs to the petitioner
No.1. It appears to be the contention of the respondents
that the construction of pucca storied house on the said
property owned by petitioner No.1 has been made without
pre-permission of planning authority. Petitioner No.1 has
already applied to the respondent /corporation to treat
her structure as compounded structure or Gunthewari and
to protect it, in the light of amended provision of the
MRTP Act, as per amending Act No.XXXII of 2017 and the
said application is pending. Further it is contended
that one Fardan Baba Farjan had filed writ petition
No.4064/2016 in this Court contending that petitioner
No.1 has encroached on land reserved for garden and has
made illegal construction thereon. Petitioner No.1
appeared through Advocate in the said petition. On
27.06.2017 the said petition was finally disposed of
without notice of final disposal and the Corporation was
directed to take necessary steps in accordance with law.
The application bearing CA No.9825/2017 to re-call the
said order was filed as it was passed in absence of the

¶51

Advocate for the present petitioner No.1. The Court
directed action as per law and hence the said application
was withdrawn. The respondent Corporation malafide and to
grab the land without payment due to some people having
vested interest making farce of misinterpreting the order
of this Court in writ petition No.4064/2016 and issued
notice No.923/2017 dated 19.07.2017 stating that the
construction of petitioner No.1 is to be demolished in 7
days and hence she should vacate the said construction
else they would do it and demolish. Thus, the petitioners
are not left with any other remedy than to file this
petition for getting the subject properties de-reserve.

¶52

9.Respondent Nos.1,2 and 5 have not filed any
reply.

¶53

10.Respondent Nos.3 and 4 have filed short
affidavit-in-reply dated 06.04.2017 (Page-58) of Avinash
B. Deshmukh, Assistant Director, Town Planning,
Aurangabad stating that the petitioners have served the
notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act and by this
petition the petitioners are seeking declaration that the
land is deemed to have been released from encumbrances of
reservation. The petitioners have no right to serve the
notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act. The

¶54

petitioners are not owners of the disputed properties.
The petitioners have failed to aver in the writ petition
and also in the purchase notice that they are the owners
of the properties. The petitioners ought to have
disclosed their interest in the properties.

¶55

11.Further it is contended that petitioner No.1 had
instituted RCS No.92/2012 in the Court of Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Aurangabad (The Corporation Court)
claiming that she is owner of Municipal House No.1-24-
53/P constructed on plot having CTS No.6671/1, however
CTS No.6671/1 does not correspond the Municipal House
No.1-24-53 nor the record shows that the Municipal House
No.1-24-53 belongs to petitioner No.1. It stands in the
name of Smt.Mehraj Khatun Turab Khan of Manjurpura,
Aurangabad. There is no record that CTS No.6671/1 was
sub-divided in parts. The learned Corporation Court while
rejecting the application [Exh.5] specifically observed
in Para No.27 as under :

¶56

“27. Neither CTS No.6671 nor 6671/1 is mentioned in the sale deed of the plaintiff. Only Municipal House number is mentioned. City Survey number is not mentioned on property tax receipt issued by defendant No.1 to the plaintiff. Thus it cannot be held that plaintiff is owner of CTS No.6671/1, nor can it be said that Municipal House No.1-24-53, situates on CTS No.6671/1”

¶57

12.

¶58

It is further contended that the petitioners

¶59

have no locus to file the writ petition for seeking
declaration that reservation is lapsed as they are not
the owners of the subject properties nor they are having
any lawful interest in the subject properties by which
they can divest the title.

¶60

13.Respondent Nos.3 and 4 have filed additional
short affidavit-in-reply dated 14.11.2017 [Page-292-A] of
Pawankumar Lalojirao Aloorakar, Assistant Director, Town
Planning, Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad, after the
petitioners have amended the petition raising the
contentions in paragraph Nos. 28-A to 28-H and on denying
the petitioners' contentions in the said paragraphs and
title of the petitioners to the subject properties it is
stated that Section 127 of the MRTP Act, mandates that
notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act is required to
be served alongwith documents of title or interest in the
said land on the planning authority. Since the purchase
notice is served without any documents of title, the same
is not valid. On the basis of such invalid notice no
right is accrued to the petitioners and no relief could
be granted to that effect. The averements made regarding
CA No.9825/2017 are incorrect. This Court by order dated
25.07.2017 was pleased to keep the said application on
27.07.2017 and in the meantime suggested the Corporation

¶61

not to carry out demolition. On 27.07.2017 the Advocate
for the applicant had withdrawn said C.A. No.9825/2017.

¶62

14.Further, it is stated that the the petitioners
have amended the prayers seeking injunction in respect of
structure standing on CTS No.6671, Sheet No.22, Situated
at Rohila Galli, Aurangabad. The said amended prayer is
misleading, the said prayers are not germane to the cause
of action, for which the present petition is filed. This
structure erected by petitioner No.1 was subject matter
of writ petition No.4064/2016. This Court by order dated
27.06.2017 directed the Corporation to take necessary
steps against illegal construction and therefore no
injunction to protect illegal construction would be
granted in this petition. The title of the petitioners
cannot be decided in the present writ petition. The
documents placed on record, can not make out the source
of the title of the petitioners and their vendors. The
notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act is not valid
notice and no relief on the basis of invalid notice can
be granted and therefore the petition deserves to be
dismissed.

¶63

15.After filing of the affidavit-in-reply dated
06.04.2017 [Page No.58] on behalf of the respondent Nos.3

¶64

and 4, the petitioners have filed the rejoinder affidavit
dated 28.04.2017 [Page No.89] of Irshad Mohammed Khan
S/o. Shamshad Mohammed- petitioner No.3, stating that the
said affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No.3 and 4 is
not true and correct. The petitioners are owners and
possessors of their respective properties and they are
residing in their respective houses. Thus, they are
interested persons. The copies of P.R. cards showing the
names of original owners Abdullah Khan, Ahmedullah Kha,
Iqbaulnnisa W/o. Hasan Khan, Asadullah Khan and Amanullah
Khan etc. and subsequent purchasers and the successors
are annexed. The copy of map of City Survey department of
CTS No.6671 is annexed. The subject properties are given
Municipal House No.1-24-53/P in the record of Municipal
Council. The petitioners are paying taxes to respondent
No.3 Municipal Corporation about subject properties. The
tax receipt/ and demand notice are annexed. In spite of
issuance of the purchase notice to the respondents and
after lapse of more than two years even till today I.e,
till filing of affidavit no steps are taken by the
respondents to either acquire the disputed properties in
accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition
Act or by agreement. Therefore, it is stated that the
writ petition may kindly be allowed and the subject
properties of the petitioners from 6671/1 to 6671/24, all

¶65

of Sheet No.22 may be declared to be free from
reservation and that the petitioners can develop the same
in accordance with law. RCS No.92/2012 was filed by
petitioner No.1 for injunction. The present writ petition
is filed under altogether different provisions of law.
Therefore, rejection of temporary injunction application
in the above said suit has no bearing on this petition.
Moreover, it was individual matter of petitioner No.1 and
it was not a matter of other petitioners. Till filing of
the affidavit-in-reply, the Corporation never questioned
or enquired with the petitioners about their title.

¶66

16.Moreover, after filing of additional short
affidavit-in-reply dated 14.11.2017 of Assistant
Director, Town Planning, Aurangabad by the respondent
Nos. 3 and 4 the petitioners have filed the rejoinder
affidavit (Page No.309) of petitioner No.1 Mariyam Begum
Abdul Ali Khan dated 23.11.2017 stating that when the
purchase notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act was
sought to be given by hand, the Clerk concerned asked to
provide the copies of P.R. Cards without which he was not
ready to accept. As such, the copies of the P.R. cards
were given by hand with notice to all the authorities. It
is only to avoid exposure of respondents that the file
concerned, the notice under section 127 of the MRTP Act

¶67

and action taken, if any, is not produced. In the
affidavit-in-reply sworn on 06.04.2017 no such contention
is raised because of the fact that the copies were
already supplied with notice. No reply at any time was
given to purchase notice dated 29.09.2014 by the
respondents. The notice dated 29.09.2014 is preceded by
notice dated 04.03.2013. Respondents replied the said
notice, title of the petitioners was not at all disputed.
Writ Petition No.5709/2014 was based on notice dated
04.03.2013 in which P.R. cards are annexed. In the
judgment of RCS No.969/2009 the development plan is held
to be illegal as without following mandatory procedure.
The respondents permitted sub-division of plots and P.R.
cards are prepared and taxes are recovered. Petitioner
No.8 Syed Rashiduddin S/o. Syed Abidulla Qadri was given
construction permission on 23.03.1981 and completion
certificate on 12.10.1982. Petitioner No.18 was given
construction permission on 16.06.2013 about CTS
No.6671/24. In the suit, title of the petitioners was
never disputed. The dispute is raised at the instance of
intervenor who claims to have objected notice given under
Section 127 of the Act, on 05.04.2016. The respondent
Corporation was served on 20.07.2016, but did not file
reply till 06.04.2017 which shows that it waives defects
in notice, if any.

¶68

( 18 ) wp5312.16

¶69

17.So also, the petitioners have filed additional
affidavit dated 09.11.2017 (Page No.309) of Majeedkhan
S/o. Mustafakhan the petitioner No.18 stating that on
10.06.2013 he and his brother Mansoorkhan petitioner
No.11 have purchased by registered sale deed CTS
No.6671/2-H with old standing house thereon. Soon after
it, they had applied to the Corporation to seek
permission to make new construction of ground + first
floor and submitted plan. The Respondent Corporation vide
printed Book No.241, Sr. No.6017 on 26.12.2014 granted
construction permission No.831/2014/15 on same CTS
No.6671/24. It is stated that accordingly construction is
made and the Municipal Corporation has granted tap
connection and recovering Municipal taxes.

¶70

18.One Fardan Baba Farjan has filed CA No.3935/2017
against the petitioners and respondents in the writ
petition No.5312/2016 to add him as intervenor in the
writ petition as respondent, to participate in the
proceedings on the grounds that he is owner and possessor
of the house Property bearing No.6669, situated at Rohila
Galli, Deodi Bazar, Aurangabad. He is residing in the
said house alongwith his younger brother and family
members since more than 60 years. As per revised

¶71

development plan of Aurangabad city dated 17.08.2002 CTS
No.6671, Sheet No.22 was reserved for garden by
Government notification dated 18.04.2001 and the plan was
sanctioned by the Government notification dated
17.08.2002. Thereafter, said reservation is continued
till date. There is no de-reservation of any portion of
CTS No.6671. After sanction of development plan in the
year 2002 as per information received by the petitioner
from the Town Planning Authority, there was no sub-
division of CTS No.6671, but respondent Nos.1 to 19 have
in collusion with the officer of Municipal Corporation
sub-divided CTS No.6671. There is no provision in
Municipal Corporation, Act to make sub-division in City
Survey Record, but its only City Survey Office by
following due procedure of law on the basis of
information given under Section 149 and 150 of the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 can make mutation on
the basis of document of title. However, without
production of documents of title the Municipal
Corporation illegally sub-divided CTS No.6671 in the name
of respondents Nos. 1 to 19 [petitioners in writ petition
No.5312/2016]. However, as per law the respondents can
not get title over the properties which they claimed as
owners. Even then the said respondents, (petitioners in
the writ petition) have filed the writ petition claiming

¶72

that they are owners of the subject properties and they
have issued purchase notice and filed this petition for
de-reservation of the subject properties. This petitioner
has taken objection to the said purchase notice on
05.04.2016.

¶73

19.Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits
that the petitioners are not only owners of the subject
properties but they are also persons interested in the
subject properties in the light of provision under
Section 127 of the MRTP Act. They have been residing in
the subject properties since their forefather. The
Municipal Corporation has provided all the facilities to
their houses in the subject properties. They have been
paying taxes of the subject properties to the Municipal
Corporation. Earlier subject properties were shown
reserved for garden as per development plan, but
subsequently the said reservation was cancelled.
Therefore, again the subject properties cannot be
reserved for garden as per revised development plan dated
18.11.2001. No steps were taken by the respondent
authorities to acquire the subject properties within 10
years of the publication of the revised development plan
dated 18.11.2001 and therefore the petitioners are
entitled to claim declaration to de-reserve the subject

¶74

properties in the light of provision under Section 127 of
the MRTP Act, and therefore, they had issued the purchase
notice (Exh.F) to the respondent Municipal Corporation,
its Commissioner and the Town Planning Officer, Municipal
Corporation, Aurangabad. Even after receipt of the said
notice, the respondents have not taken steps to acquire
the subject properties within one year and therefore, the
petitioners are entitled to declaration to de-reserve the
subject properties as requested in the petition. The
petitioners have submitted the documents of title to the
subject properties when purchase notice was given by hand
to the respondent authorities. The said respondents have
also waived the condition of attaching documents of title
with the purchase notice as the purchase notice is not
replied by the said respondents. The title of the
petitioners was not denied when first affidavit-in-reply
was filed on 06.04.2017 and thus respondent Nos.3 and 4
have waived defect in the purchase notice, if any. It is
submitted that thus, the grounds on which the purchase
notice is claimed to be invalid by the respondent Nos. 3
and 4 are not sustainable.

¶75

20.Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners
has in support of his submissions relied upon the
following decisions:

¶76

a] In the case of Girnar Traders Vs State of Maharashtra, 2007 [7] SCC 555 in Para No.56 the Apex Court has observed as under:-

¶77

“56. The underlying principle envisaged in Section 127 of the MRTP Act is either to utilize the land for the purpose it is reserved in the plan in a given time or let the owner utilize 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. It is a step of acquisition of land and not step for acquisition of land. It is trite that failure of authorities to take steps which result in actual commencement of acquisition of land cannot be permitted to defeat the purpose and object of the scheme of acquisition under the MRTP Act by merely moving an application requesting the Government to acquire the land, which Government may or may not accept. Any step which may or may not culminate in the step for acquisition cannot be said to be a step towards acquisition.”

¶78

b] In the case of Hirabaidattatray Baabar and ors Vs Sangli, Miraj, Kupwad Municipal Corporation & ors reported in 2007[4]Bom.C.R. 151 Equivalent Citation 2007[5]All.M.R.396: 2007[5]Mh.L.J.90, in Paragraph Nos. 10 the Division Bench of this Court has observed thus:

¶79

The law as it stands, is that the time to be computed for calculating the period of six months is the making of the application to the State Government under Section 126 of the M.R.T.P. Act, from the date of receipt of the purchase notice under Section 127 of the M.R.T.P. Act.

¶80

c] In the case of Ramchandra Shankar Joshi and others Vs State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2016[1]Mh.L.J.765: 2015[6]AIR Bom R 364 in paragraph Nos. 7 & 8 the Division Bench of this Court has observed thus:

¶81

“7. It is a settled position of law that notice contemplated under Section 127 of the Act of 1966 is to be given by the owner or the person having interest in the land which is reserved, allotted or designated for the particular purpose in the development plan. The object of the notice under Section 127 is to inform the Authority mentioned therein to acquire the land which is designated, reserved or allotted in the final development plan. It is further settled position in law that form of notice under Section 127 is not prescribed. Therefore such notice shall meet sufficient requirement in describing the land in clear terms and require the planning authority or development authority or the appropriate authority, as the case may be, to acquire or compulsorily purchase the land so reserved, allotted or

¶82

designated in the development plan. In case such a notice in a proper form is served on the concerned authority and no steps are taken within six months from the date of service of such notice, the reservation/allotment/designation shall be deemed to have lapsed and the land shall be deemed to have been released from the said reservation.

¶83

Therefore, the precondition for the land owner or the person interested to claim benefit under the provisions of section 127 of the Act 1966 would be to give proper notice describing the land in sufficient clarity and intimating the concerned authority in clear terms.”

¶84

d] In the case of M/s. Gupta Loom Industries & Anr Vs The State of Maharashtra and ors reported in 2016 [6]ALL MR 307 the Division Bench of this Court in Paragraph Nos. 13 and 14 has observed as under:-

¶85

“13. It is true that the notice under sub-section [1] of Section 127 has to be construed strictly as non-compliance with the notice has a drastic consequence of lapse of reservation. Therefore, the mandatory requirement of law is that strict compliance must be made of while issuing a notice under SubSection [1] of Section 127. In the facts of the case, we find that specifically on the basis of the said notice dated 7^th October, 2010, the General Body of the Municipal Corporation passed a

¶86

resolution for initiating acquisition proceedings. The proposal for the acquisition specifically refers to the said notice. Hence, even the said Corporation has acted upon the said notice dated 7^th October, 2010 by treating it as a notice under Section 127.

¶87

It is well settled that if certain requirements or conditions are provided by a statute for the benefit of a person, the said requirements or conditions though mandatory, may be waived by the said person if no public interest is involved. In the facts of the case, the Municipal Corporation acted upon the said notice by passing a resolution to initiate acquisition proceedings which shows that the alleged defects in the notice were waived by the said Corporation for whose benefit certain requirements are provided in Section 127.”

¶88

e] In the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs Dr.Hakimwadi Tenants' Association and others reported in 1988 [Supp]Supreme Court Cases 55 it was observed in Para No.10 that:

¶89

“We must hold in agreement with the High Court that the purchase notice dated July 1, 1977 served by respondents 4-7 was a valid notice and therefore with the failure of the appellant to take any steps for the acquisition of the land within the period of six months therefrom, the reservation of the land in the

¶90

Development Plan for a recreation ground lapsed and consequently, the impugned notification dated April 7, 1978 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act issued by the State Government must be struck down as a nullity.”

¶91

f. In the case of Supreme Industries Ltd. Through its Authorized Signatory Vs State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No.7163/2016 decided on 10.08.2017 by the Division Bench of this Court [Coram:R.M.Borde and S.M.Gavhane, JJ] in para 10 it was observed as under:

¶92

Since the Municipal Corporation has acted upon the notice issued by petitioner, as has been held by the Division Bench in the matter of Gupta Loom Industries (Supra), the alleged defect in the notice shall be deemed to have been waived by the Municipal Corporation for whose benefit certain requirements are provided in Section 127 of the Act. It also must be noted that in spite of adopting resolution on 29.04.2015, no steps have been taken by the Municipal Corporation till today. The Corporation in fact does not dispute receipt of notice issued by petitioner under Section 127 of the Act and ownership of petitioner over the property. However, it is harping upon the technical defects which, in the facts of the case, for the reasons recorded above, do not hold good.

¶93

g] In the case of Krishna Kumar Mediratta Vs Phulchand Agrawal reported in 1977 DGLS (SC)45 it was held that, it is not the breach of every mandatory duty in performing a prescribed act that could make an action totally ineffective or void ab initio. The filling of the application is one thing and completion of some annexed duty, which is legally separable, is another unless a statute or a rule provides otherwise.

¶94

21.Learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.4
submits that the petitioners are not owners of the
subject properties. They have not annexed the documents
of title to the subject properties with the purchase
notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act. Learned
Advocate further submits that as per section 127 of the
MRTP Act the land owners have to supply copies of
documents showing their title or interest in the land
with notice. Since the petitioners did not annex
documents of their ownership to the subject properties
with notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act there is no
compliance of the said provision and therefore the
purchase notice given by the petitioners is invalid and
therefore, as the petitioners have no locus to file the
writ petition they are not entitled to relief of
declarations as claimed in the petition to declare that
the subject properties are deemed to be de-reserved since

¶95

no steps have been taken by the respondents to acquire the said properties within one year of service of the said notice. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 has relied upon decisions in the case of Jaika Vanijya Ltd, Nagpur and another Vs State of Maharashtra and others 2013[4]Mh.L.J.161 and in the case of Perfect Machine Tools Co. Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra and ors 2008[2]Mh.L.J. 404.

¶96

22.We have also heard the learned Advocate
appearing for intervenor /applicant in CA No.13212/2017.

¶97

23.We have carefully considered the submissions of
the learned Advocates for the petitioners, respondent
No.4 and the applicant-intervenor. So also, with their
assistance we have perused the petition, affidavits-in-
reply, rejoinder affidavits, intervenor's application and
the documents relied upon by the petitioners.

¶98

24.The petitioners' claim is based on the provision
under Section 127 of the MRTP Act which reads thus:

¶99

“127. Lapsing of reservations:

¶100

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

¶101

( 29 ) wp5312.16

¶102

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.

¶103

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.

¶104

25.On plain reading of provision under Section 127
of the MRTP Act, it is clear that notice contemplated
thereunder is required to be served on Planning
Authority, Development Authority or as the case may be
appropriate authority. The petitioners are expected to
give 12 months time (as per the provision prevailing

¶105

then) to the said authorities to acquire the land. As
such proceedings for acquisition, therefore, need to be
commenced within said period of 12 months. If the
proceedings are not so commenced the reservation of land
is deemed to have lapsed. After such lapsing the land is
released from reservation and becomes available to the
owners for the purpose of development or otherwise
permissible in case of adjacent land under relevant plan.
The owner or any person interested in the land/property
under reservation may serve the notice contemplated under
Section 127 of the MRTP Act.

¶106

26.According to the petitioners the subject
properties were reserved as per development plan for
garden. As said development plan was not completed within
stipulated time again the subject properties came to be
reserved for garden as per revised development plan dated
18.11.2001. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 have not specifically
denied this fact in their reply affidavits. There is no
dispute that the petitioners issued the purchase notice
(Exh.F) under Section 127 of the MRTP Act dated
29.09.2014 to the respondents Municipal Corporation,
Aurangabad, respondent No.4 Municipal Commissioner and
Town Planning Officer for Municipal Corporation,
Aurangabad. According to the petitioners the said notice

¶107

was served upon these authorities on 30.09.2014.
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in their above said reply
affidavits have not specifically denied the fact of
service of purchase notice on them on 30.09.2014 by RPAD.
On the contrary in the reply affidavit submitted on
behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in paragraph No.3 it is
stated that petitioners have served the notice under
provision of Section 127 of the MRTP Act and by filing
the present writ petition, the petitioners are seeking
declaration that the land is deemed to have been released
from the encumbrances of reservation. Therefore, we hold
that the petitioners have served the purchase notice on
respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Town Planning Officer,
Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad on 30.09.2014 by RPAD.

¶108

27.The contesting respondent Nos.3 and 4 have
objected the reliefs claimed by the petitioners on two
grounds, i.e. on the ground that the petitioners are not
owners of the subject properties and that the petitioners
did not annex the documents showing their title to the
subject properties with the purchase notice. Therefore
the purchase notice is invalid and hence the petitioners
are not entitled to reliefs of declaration claimed in the
petition.

¶109

28.In the first place we shall deal with the
objection raised by the contesting respondents that as
alongwith purchase notice the petitioners did not annex
the documents of their ownership/title to the subject
properties which is mandatory requirement of purchase
notice as per Section 127 of the MRTP Act the said notice
is invalid and hence the petitioners are not entitled to
de-reservation of the subject properties as claimed by
them. On perusal of purchase notice (Exh.F) it does not
show that alongwith said notice the petitioners had
enclosed the documents of their title to the subject
properties. Moreover, it is not their case in the
petition that alongwith purchase notice which was sent by
them on 29.09.2014 by RPAD they had annexed the documents
of their ownership to the subject properties.

¶110

29.In the rejoinder affidavit dated 23.11.2017
(Page No.309) of petitioner No.1, it is stated in
paragraph No.2 as under:-

¶111

“It is submitted that when notice was sought to be given by hand, the clerk concerned asked to provide copies of P.R. cards without which he was not ready to accept. As such copies of P.R. cards were given by hand with notice to all authorities. It is only to avoid exposure of respondents that the files concerning the notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act and action taken, if

¶112

any is not produced. In the affidavit in reply sweared on 06.04.2017 no such contention is raised because of the fact that copies were already supplied with notice. It is denied that notice dated 29.09.2014 is not valid. No reply at any time was given to this notice by respondents.”

¶113

From the above contents of affidavit it appears
that the petitioners have claimed that when notice was
served on all the authorities by hand, on asking the
concerned clerks copies of the P.R. cards of the subject
properties were given by hand to all authorities.

¶114

30.As referred earlier in their affidavit-in-reply
dated 06.04.2017 (Page No.58) respondent Nos. 3 and 4
have not specifically denied the contention of the
petitioners that the purchase notice was also given by
hand to the respondents as per endorsements on the
purchase notice (Exh.F). On perusal of the purchase
notice (Exh.F) it seems that it bears three seals i.e.
one seal of Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad dated
01.10.2014, second seal of Municipal Corporation,
Aurangabad dated 01.10.2014 and third seal of Aurangabad
Municipal Corporation, Town Planning Department dated
01.10.2015. These seals /endorsements were obtained after
delivery of the purchase notice by hand on the said three

¶115

authorities. These endorsements did not show that with
the purchase notice documents of ownership to the subject
properties were delivered to the concerned Clerks of the
said three authorities. In fact, when the purchase notice
was given by hand to all the three authorities mentioned
in the said notice and if the documents of ownership were
delivered to the concerned Clerks of the said authorities
as stated in the rejoinder affidavit of petitioner No.1,
it was possible for the person who had given documents of
ownership of the subject properties to the concerned
Clerks of the said authorities, to obtain endorsement to
that effect alongwith seals of all the three authorities
in token of receipts of purchase notice with the
documents of title by hand. But, when there is no such
endorsement on the purchase notice (Exh.F), the
contention of the petitioner No.1 in rejoinder-affidavit
(Page No.309) that when notice was sought to be given by
hand the concerned Clerks asked to provide copies of P.R.
cards without which he was not ready to accept and as
such the copies of P.R. cards were given by hand with
purchase notice to all authorities appears to be after
thought and is not sufficient to say that documents of
title to the subject properties were given with the
purchase notice to all the three authorities.

¶116

31.There is no dispute that respondent Nos.3 and 4
have filed short affidavit-in-reply (Page No.58) on
06.04.2017 for the first time after their appearance
stating that the petitioners have no right to serve the
purchase notice, that the petitioners are not owners of
the subject properties and that the petitioners have no
locus to file the writ petition. In the said affidavit it
is not contended that the purchase notice was served on
the respondents without the documents of title and only
intheaffidavit-in-replydated14.11.2017
(Page No.292-A) respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have raised
objection that since the purchase notice is served
without any documents of title, the same is not valid. As
mentioned earlier, it is not mentioned in the purchase
notice (Exh.F) that it was served on the respondents
alongwith documents of title of the subject properties so
also it is not the case of the petitioners in the memo of
the writ petition that the purchase notice was served on
the respondents alongwith the documents of their title to
the subject properties. Considering these aspects and say
in the short affidavit dated 06.04.2017 filed on behalf
of respondent Nos.3 and 4, after thought statement in
the rejoinder-affidavit dated 23.11.2017 (Page No.309) of
petitioner No.1 that copies of P.R. cards were given by
hand with the purchase notice to all the authorities is

¶117

not acceptable. In all the above circumstances merely
because contesting respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have not
stated in short affidavit dated 06.04.2017 that the
purchase notice was served without documents of title to
the subject properties it cannot be said that the
petitioners have served the purchase notice with
documents of title as claimed by the petitioners in the
rejoinder-affidavit dated 23.11.2017. It is true that
respondents have not replied the purchase notice. But, in
the circumstances noted above merely because respondents
have not replied the purchase notice no inference can be
drawn that the purchase notice was served on respondents
by the petitioners with documents of title.

¶118

32. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners relying upon the ratio laid down in the case of M /s. Gupta Loom Industries & Anr cited (supra) and Supreme Industries Ltd. Through its Authorized Signatory cited (Supra) submitted that, in the present case as respondents have not replied purchase notice it can be said that they have waived the condition of attaching the documents of title with purchase notice. In both the above said decisions the respondent Municipal Corporation had passed resolution for initiating acquisition proceedings to acquire the land after receipt of the purchase notice and

¶119

( 37 ) wp5312.16

¶120

acted upon the said notice. Therefore, it was held in the
said decisions that respondents have waived the alleged
defect in the notice. In the present case, it is not the
case of any of the respondents that after receipt of the
purchase notice the respondent Municipal Corporation has
passed resolution to initiate acquisition proceedings to
acquire the subject properties. Thus, facts of above
decisions are different from facts of this case.
Therefore, the arguments advanced as above on behalf of
the petitioners is not accepted and the ratio laid down
in the above decisions is of no help to say that the
respondents have waived the condition of attaching
documents of title with the purchase notice.

¶121

33. For the reasons discussed above we hold that the petitioners have failed to prove that the purchase notice (Exh.F) was served on the respondents with the documents of title by hand. Thus, as the purchase notice was not served on the respondents authorities with the documents of title to the subject properties and that ownership of petitioners is disputed by respondent the said notice is invalid. Therefore, there is substance in the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.4 relying upon the ratio laid down in the case of Jaika Vanijya Ltd. Nagpur and another (Supra) and

¶122

Perfect Machine Tools Co. Ltd. (Supra) that the purchase notice is invalid as the documents of title were not attached to it.

¶123

34. Now it is to be seen whether the purchase notice is invalid as the petitioners did not give twenty four months period to the respondent authorities to take steps from the date of service of said notice on them in view of the amendment in Section 127 of the MRTP Act, after service of the purchase notice on them and prior to filing this petition. There is an amendment in Section 127 of the MRTP Act, deleting twelve months period substituting it by twenty four months period within which the authorities are required to take steps to acquire the property after service of the purchase notice. In view of the decision in the case of Vishnuvasant Developers, Digras and others Vs State of Maharashtra and another reported in 201(2)Mh.L.J.284 it was held that the amended provisions of Section 127 (1) of the Act that extend the period for taking effective steps to twenty four months, as against twelve months, as provided by the unamended provisions would not be applicable to a matter where the owner or any person interested in the land has served a notice on the planning or the appropriate authority, as the case may be, before the amended provisions came into

¶124

effect on 29.08.2015. Therefore, amended provision of
Section 127 (1) extending the period of twenty four
months for taking effective steps by the respondents
would not be applicable to the present case and
therefore, it cannot be said that the purchase notice in
the present case is invalid on that ground.

¶125

35.For the forgoing reasons we hold that as the
petitioners did not attach the documents of their title
to the subject properties with the purchase notice
(Exh.F) which was served on the respondents, the said
notice is invalid.

¶126

36.In view of the fact that the purchase notice is
invalid as observed above we find it not necessary to
consider the aspect whether the petitioners are owners of
the subject properties which is disputed question of
fact.

¶127

37.As the purchase notice is invalid the
petitioners are not entitled to declaration to de-reserve
the subject properties as claimed in the petition and
therefore, on the said ground alone petition is liable to
be rejected.

¶128

38. The learned counsel appearing for intervenor in Civil Application No.13212/2017 has submitted that the subject properties have been reserved for garden and therefore those cannot be de-reserved even if the respondent authorities have not acquired the subject properties within ten years of the publication of revised development plan and the respondents have not taken steps within twelve months to acquire the subject properties after service of purchase notice on them by the petitioners. To support his submissions he has relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in a case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and other Vs Hiraman Sitaram Deorukhar and others in Civil Appeal No.11258/2018 arising out of SLP (C) No.30524/2014 decided on 24.08.2017.

¶129

.In the said case total 90500 sq. yard
area was reserved for garden. The disputed
portion was 3090 sq. yard. In the year 1967 the
disputed property was reserved for garden in the
development plan. The said development plan was
revised in the year 1991-1992. The reservation
of the disputed properties was further continued
for the purpose of garden. On 05.10.1992
respondent Nos. 2 to 12 and the deceased namely

¶130

Sitaram Deorukhar entered into an agreement for
sale dated 05.10.1992 in favour of respondent
No.13. On 18.10.1992 power of attorney was
executed in favour of respondent No.13 to
institute a suit in relation to the property.
Power of attorney served a notice for purchase
under Section 127 of the MRTP Act on 25.07.2007.
The Municipal Corporation gave its approval to
initiate the purchase proceedings of the land.
On 19.10.2007, Improvement Committee, passed
resolution No.126 and recommended to the
Corporation to acquire the land of village
Borivali reserved for public purpose i.e. for
the garden. On 21.01.2008 a proposal was
submitted to the Collector for acquisition of
land in question. Thus the Corporation submitted
that it had taken the effective steps within six
months from the date of the purchase notice for
an acquisition of the land as per the then
prevailing time limit. On 25.02.2008, the
petitioner/attorney had been informed that his
application for permission to allow development
on land under reference could not be considered
under the provisions of the MRTP Act.
Consequently, writ petition was preferred by

¶131

respondent Nos.1 to 13 in the High Court i.e.
W.P.No.2535 of 2008. Prayers made in the writ
petition was that the reservation may be quashed
and set aside as it had lapsed, and permission
may be given to them to develop the said
property in accordance with the Rules and
Regulations of the Corporation. The High Court
by the impugned order held that the reservation
had lapsed, and that the land is deemed to have
been released from the reservation, and that the
area reserved for the garden has become
available to the owner thereof for the purpose
of development. In the appeal preferred by the
Corporation, the Apex Court has observed as
under:-

¶132

“In the light of aforesaid principles, it is shocking in the instant case that in spite of prayer having been made on behalf of the Municipal Corporation, the State Government did not issue a declaration under Section 126 of the MRTP Act. Thus the provisions for open spaces in the statutory scheme were in effect made a statutory mockery. The authorities were bound to act with circumspection and to act timely to take steps to issue the requisite

¶133

( 43 ) wp5312.16

¶134

declaration as per development plan. They were well aware of the consequences. The inaction was impermissible in such an issue of great public importance, having constitutional imperative under Article 21 read with Article 48-A and further it was in breach of fundamental duty imposed under Article 51A(g) to protect natural environment, and having the potential to lead to the derogation of the public interest. Such inaction is intolerable, and the area ought to be preserved for park only. More so, considering its situation that it is encircled by garden area, the Court cannot be a moot spectator and permit statutory provisions to become a mockery by inaction or lethargy on the part of the unscrupulous authorities. No reason is coming forth as to why steps were not taken by the concerned authorities to act in the public interest, as per statutory mandate, and as per development plan. The duty is cast upon the authorities to act as cestui que trust with respect to the public park. As a matter of fact, authorities ought to have issued forthwith a requisite declaration and ought to have completed the proceedings. Be that as it may, since there is lapse of reservation, and the land is still required for public park, and since now the provisions of Right to Fare Compensation and

¶135

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short 'the 2013 Act') have come into force, obviously the compensation has to be paid in accordance with the provisions contained in the said Act. In the circumstances, we direct that the land shall continue to be reserved and to be used for the public garden. However, the compensation shall be determined and paid in accordance with the principles laid down in the 2013 Act.

¶136

Thus, we set aside the order passed by the High Court. Let compensation be determined after hearing the interested parties and it shall be decided within a period of six months from today. The appeals are accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.”

¶137

39.Admittedly, in the present case subject
properties have been reserved for garden as per revised
development plan. They have not been acquired within ten
years of the publication of revised development plan. It
is held that the purchase notice is invalid and
therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to
declarations sought in the petition to de-reserve the
subject properties and the petition is liable to be
rejected. However, as the authorities have not put forth

¶138

any reason why they have not taken steps in the public interest as per statutory mandate and as per revised development plan to acquire the subject properties for garden, applying the ratio laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (supra) directions are required to be issued to the respondent authorities in the light of mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision. Therefore, we pass the following order.

¶139

O R D E R

¶140

a.It is directed that the subject

¶141

properties shall be used for public garden. The
Municipal Corporation shall initiate acquisition
proceedings of the subject properties reserved
for garden within six months from today and
shall complete the said proceedings within one
year thereafter and pay compensation accordingly
to the legitimate persons.

¶142

It is made clear that we have not
dealt about the aspect of ownership. The parties
are at liberty to agitate about the ownership
and possession in appropriate proceedings as is

¶143

permissible in law.

¶144

b.Accordingly, rule made absolute in
above terms. Writ petition stands disposed of.
No order as to costs.

¶145

c.In view of the disposal of the writ
petition, Civil Application Nos. 3935/2017 &
13212/2017 stand disposed of.

¶146

[S.M.GAVHANE,J.] [S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.]

¶147

.After pronouncement of judgment Mr. Mantri,
learned Advocate submits that the protection was granted
with regard to the construction on the writ land, the
same be continued for a period of eight (8) weeks.

¶148

2.Mr.Shah, learned Advocate for the respondent
vehemently opposes the request.

¶149

3.Considering the fact that interim protection was
operating during the pendency of this petition, the said
protection shall continue for a period of four (4) weeks
from today.

¶150

( 47 ) wp5312.16

¶151

4.Needless to state, on lapse of four (4) weeks,

¶152

the said protection shall come to an end.

¶153

[S.M.GAVHANE,J.] [S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.]

¶154

VishalK/ wp5312.16

Mariyam Begum Abdul Jalil Khan and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mariyam Begum Abdul Jalil Khan and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Sahebraoji Patil Dongaonkar and Ors. Vs State of Maha and Ors.

Indumati Tukaram Thorat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Umesh Baburao Thale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mirza Subhan Baig Waheb Baig Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Tulshiram Eknathrao Kolhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Savita Laxman Bhole Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others