RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The issue that arises for consideration is whether a person served with a notice under Section 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (herein after referred to as the 'MRTP Act' for the sake of brevity) can approach the District Judge under Section 286(3) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation Act' for the sake of brevity) for extension of the notice period in the notice issued under Section 53(1) of the MRTP Act.

3. Few facts giving rise to the petition are stated thus The petitioner-Nagpur Municipal Corporation had issued a notice to the respondent under the provisions of Section 53(1) of the MRTP Act asking the respondent to demolish the unauthorized construction within a period of one month failing which, the Corporation would take necessary action against the respondent. On receipt of the notice under Section 53(1) of the MRTP Act, the respondent filed an application before the District Judge, Nagpur under Section 286 (3) of the Corporation Act for extension of the notice period. It was stated in the application that an extension of 90 days to the notice period was required for taking appropriate steps for questioning the notice under Section 53 of the MRTP Act. The Corporation filed the reply and raised a preliminary objection to the tenability of the application under Section 286(3) of the Corporation Act. It was the case of the Corporation that the notice was issued by the Corporation under Section 53(1) of the MRTP Act and not under Section 286(1) of the Corporation Act and, hence, there was no question of seeking extension of the notice period by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 286(3) of the Corporation Act. The District Judge-3, Nagpur overruled the objection raised by the Corporation and held that it had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application under Section 286 (3) of the Corporation Act. The order passed by the learned District Judge-3, Nagpur on 21.06.2011 is impugned in the instant petition.

4. ShriKasat, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the respondent under Section 286(3) of the Corporation Act for seeking the extension of the notice period in the notice issued under Section 53 of the MRTP Act. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the provisions of Section 53 of the MRTP Act provide that a person aggrieved by the notice under Section 53(1) can file an application under Section 44 of the MRTP Act for permission for the retention of any building or works and the respondent could have resorted to the remedy under Section 44 of the MRTP Act specially when in view of the provisions of Section 149 of the MRTP Act an order or a notice issued by an authority under the provisions of the MRTP Act is held to be final and is not liable to be questioned in any suit or other legal proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that only a person aggrieved by the notice under Section 286 of the Corporation Act is entitled to file an application before the District Judge for extension of the notice period under Section 286(3) of the Corporation Act and since the notice in this case was issued under Section 53 of the MRTP Act, the respondent could not have resorted to the provisions of Section 286(3) of the Corporation Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge on 21.06.2011 suffers from a jurisdictional error and is liable to be set aside.

5. ShriKhati, the learned counsel for the respondent, had nothing to say on the merits of the matter and submitted that the writ petition is liable to be disposed of without considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner as the extended period