JUDGMENT - GOKHALE H.L., J.:—This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the notice dated 26th February, 1997 issued by respondent No. 1, who is Assistant Director of Town Planning, Kalyan Municipal Corporation. The notice is issued under section 51 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 ("MRTP Act" for short). The notice informs the petitioner that she had applied for development of the concerned parcel of land on 24th July, 1992. That time she had not furnished necessary papers of ownership concerning the property. The notice alleges that she has not produced the correct papers and obtained the permission to construct as per the earlier order of the respondent No. 1 dated 24th August, 1992. That permission was being cancelled under section 51(1) of the MRTP Act. The notice calls upon the petitioner to remove the construction, failing which the Municipal Corporation will remove it. A question is raised in this petition with respect to the powers which are available to respondent No. 1 under the said section and whether the impugned action was called for and justified. The petition was admitted on 5th August, 1997 and interim relief has been granted in terms of prayer (d) which has been running throughout the pendency of this petition which restrains the respondents from in any manner demolishing the building which was under construction at that point of time.

2.Mr. Apte, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has drawn our attention to the facts leading to the petition. The petitioner was granted the building permission on the concerned plot of land which she claims to be having House No. 81/2. The permission was granted on 24th August, 1992. Thereafter the construction started much later, i.e. on 25th March, 1996. Respondent No. 3 herein filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 211 of 1996 in the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kalyan seeking a declaration that he was the owner of House No. 81 and sought injunction. It is material to note that the suit was not filed against the petitioner but was filed against her husband, son and daughter. In that suit, an order of status quo was passed on 1st April, 1996. However, again it is material to note that it was concerning House No. 81 in Ali No. 59 of gaothan area of Kalyan. Against that order, an appeal was preferred. That came to be dismissed on 9th May, 1997. Respondent No. 5 thereafter filed an application under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Civil Procedure Code complaining that there was a breach of the order of status quo. That application came to be rejected by an order passed on 28th April, 1998. In para 9 of that order, the learned Judge recorded that the contention of the defendant in that suit, i.e. the petitioner herein, was that her construction was on House Plot No. 81/2 and not upon House Plot No. 81. The plaintiff, respondent No. 3 herein, himself had filed a copy of extract of title. It showed that House No. 81 was having a different map from that of House No. 81/2. The learned Judge recorded that these are two separate properties. That being the position, the learned Judge rejected the application alleging breach of the order of status quo.

3.This order was challenged in a civil revision application to the High Court and the High Court dismissed the civil revision application by an order passed on 24th June, 1998. In para 8 of the order passed by the High Court, again it was noted that House No. 81 was different from House No. 81/2 and these are two separate properties. An S.L.P. was preferred against this order and that also came to be dismissed on 17th August, 1998.

4.It is material to note that respondent No. 2 filed another Special Civil Suit No. 486 of 1996 in the same Court. This was for injunction only and now this time it was against the petitioner. It sought to restrain her from carrying on any further construction. An application was filed for temporary injunction therein and that whatever c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document