S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.

Heard both sides.

2. Rule. Respondents waive service. Since all the contesting respondents are before this court, with their consent, the writ petition is disposed of finally by this order.

3. The petitioner before this court is a registered partnership firm carrying on business as Builder and Developer from the address mentioned in the cause title. The first respondent is the State of Maharashtra and respondent nos. 2 to 4 are the authorities exercising powers under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the MLRC"). Respondent nos. 5 to 18 are the private parties and as far as the subject issue or controversy is concerned, their presence is not necessary save and except respondent no.5. Respondent no. 19 is the Municipal Corporation of Pimpri Chinchwad (hereinafter referred to as "the Municipal Corporation"), a Municipal Corporation established and covered by the Maharashtra Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1949") and respondent no.20 is the City Engineer of this Municipal Corporation.

4. The petitioner says that the area admeasuring 0-H 20-R out of Original Survey No.93/3/1 was initially sold by a registered sale deed, copy of which is at Exhibit 'A'. Thereafter, the petitioner claims to have obtained a right to develop the property because the petitioner firm was in receipt of a registered power of attorney and development agreement dated 17th October, 2005. The petitioner says that it purchased total area admeasuring 0-H 20-R out of Survey No.93/3/7 by a registered sale deed dated 20th September, 2010. The petitioner, thus, claims to have purchased not only this land, but an adjoining land as well. The petitioner says that measurement of the land-Survey No.93 was carried out and details pertaining thereto are set out in para 5 of the writ petition. Then, the petitioner relies upon the Measurement Report No.607 of 2007 dated 27th August, 2007, copy of which is at Annexure 'E' to the petition.

5. The petitioner says that the fifth respondent and one more person purchased an area admeasuring 0-H 40-R by a registered sale deed dated 26th July, 2010, but they have depicted wrong boundaries in Survey No.93/3/1. This is a land which is different from that of the petitioner's land. The correct boundaries are as depicted in the sale deed of 17th October, 1980.

6. It is claimed that there was a measurement issue or dispute. Paras 9 to 11 of this petition point out the details of such dispute. Thereafter, the matter was taken up before the Deputy Director of Land Records and what transpired before him, during a hearing, is then set out in para 12 of the writ petition. It is alleged that the fifth respondent, at the relevant time, was a Mayor of this Municipal Corporation and, using his political influence and position, he prevailed upon the authorities, exercising powers under the MLRC, to initiate proceedings and reopen the issue of measurement. Be that as it may, we are not concerned with the said dispute, but what is material for our purpose is the intervention of the Municipal Corporation. From the annexures to the writ petition, it is apparent that the petitioner was firstly in receipt of a Commencement Certificate (CC) and that CC came to be revalidated. It was revised and the copy of the revised CC is at Exhibit 'D-1' to the paper book. Condition Nos. 19 and 20 therein are relevant. Thus, this is a revised CC, but with terms and conditions. Condition No.19 says that in the event there is dispute regarding measurement of the properties as per the position of the respective parties, then, the Municipal Corporation would not be responsible for such dispute about the measurement and boundaries. It is very clearly stated in Condition No.19 that unless the City Survey Office does not issue the correct measurement map and the property card, the petitioner shall not be issued the part or full completion certificate. Thus, it is s