JUDGMENT

R. M. SAHAI, J.:—These are two applications filed by Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (in brief MHADA) - one for taking proceedings for contempt against the opposite parties and other for initiating proceedings for perjuiry against Shri P. K. Pangare (referred in brief as Pangare), the respondent in S. L. P. and opposite party No. 1 in the contempt petition.

2. Before adverting to these applications it is necessary to mention in brief the background in which these applications came to be filed. On 12th January 1980 a Notification was issued under Section 41 (3) of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (referred as the Act) by the Deputy Secretary of the Government, Housing and Special Assistance Department, Government of Maharashtra whereby it was notified that the lands mentioned in the Schedule vested in the Government of Maharashtra. In pursuance of this Notification name of MHADA was mutated over survey No. 18. The acquisition was challenged by the owner, Pangare by Writ Petition No. 3585 of 1981 on 12th November 1981. It was allowed on 8th November 1983 following the judgment rendered in Writ Petition No. 4192 of 1981 by which subsections (3) and (4) of Section 44 of the Act had been struck down as ultra vires. The State filed S. L. P. in this Court against the decision in the main writ petition and other writ petitions including the one filed by Pangare which was numbered as S.L.P. No. 3340 of 1984. Notice was issued on it but no interim order was granted. The S. L. P. filed by one Basantibai was allowed in 1986. The judgment and order of the High Court was reversed. It was held that Section 44 of the Act did not suffer from any invalidity. The S. L. P. filed against Pangare was however dismissed on 18th April 1991. On 4th December 1992 an application was filed on behalf of the State seeking review of the Order as the Order was passed under misapprehension. It was stated that at the time of argument it was urged by the learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra that the controversy raised in the petition stood concluded by a decision of this Court which fact was noticed in the Order, yet by mistake in the operative portion it was mentioned that the S. L. P. is dismissed. It was served on Pangare on 7th April 1993. The Order was recalled on 3rd September 1993.

3. What happened in the meantime that Pangare applied for mutation of his name in the revenue records. Notice of it appears to have been served on MHADA. But it is averred it did not file any reply nor any one appeared. Consequently the application was allowed and the name of MHADA was directed to be deleted and an order was passed directing that the name of Pangare be entered in the revenue records. Pangare sold portion of Survey No. 18 to one Mohd. Shafi Abdul Wahab Shaikh. The said Shaikh in 1990 obtained sanction from the Municipal Council for layout plan and sub-divided the area purchased by him into 7 sub-plots for building purposes. In January 1992 Shaikh sold all the 7 plots by separate conveyance to one Shri S. R. Gupta and six other persons. In October 1992 the revised layout plan was sanctioned by the Municipal Council and the plan was sanctioned in respect of the said plots. Commencement certificate was also issued. Between January to March 1993 plots Nos. 1 to 6 of Survey No. 18 were sold in favour of M/s. Volition Investments Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as VIPL) by separate deeds of conveyance.

4. When notice of review was served on Pangare he filed reply to the affidavit filed in support of the review application on 27th July 1993. It was stated by him that even though the writ petition had been allowed, but MHADA had not challenged the Order passed by the High Court by way of S. L. P. Therefore, it has no locus standi to file review petition. It was stated when his name was mutated over the land he sold it in favour of Shaikh for a total consideration of Rs. 8 lacs. The said Shaikh had issued Public N