JUDGMENT

Ranjit More, J. - Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties.

2. By the present Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks a Writ of Certiorari for calling the record and proceedings from the office of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and thereafter for quashing and setting aside the development permission/commencement certificate dated 11.08.2017 granted in favour of respondent No.4. By way of interim order, the implementation of the said permission is sought to be stayed. On 03.10.2018 notice was came to be issued to respondents and by way of adinterim order the construction made by the respondent No.4 was made subject to outcome of the petition.

3. We have heard the learned counsel Shri.S.M. Oak along with Shri.S.A. Joshi appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner claim to be a legal heir of one Shri.Janya Rama Vad and claims that he was cultivating the land bearing Survey No.114/4 and 115/2 situated at Village Kolshet, Sector 5, Ghodbunder Road, Thane in the capacity as a tenant. It is the contention of the petitioner that Janya Vad was residing in the structure erected on the said land and his name was mutated as "protected tenant" in the Record of Rights on 31.01.1956 under the provisions of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short ''B.T. & A.L. Act''). Shri.Janya Rama Vad expired on 20.10.1968 and the petitioner stakes his claim through him. The petitioner has placed on record a copy of the Mutation Entry 354 reflecting the name of the deceased person as ''protected tenant''. It is the case of the petitioner that in January 2015 the name was arbitrarily deleted from the record of rights. However, by Mutation Entry No.2959 dated 27.05.2016 it was again reentered under the same caption.

4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the development activity undertaken by respondent No.4 and the submission is that the respondent No.4 submitted a development proposal for development of the said land in amalgamation of Survey No.99/2 which was a land adjoining to the plot belonging to Janya Vad and this proposal came to be considered and on 11.01.2016, the Thane Municipal Corporation granted permission in favour of respondent No.4 to carry out the Development. The petitioner is also conscious of the fact that Commencement Certificate came to be granted to respondent Nos.4 on 11.01.2016 and 24.02.2016. The grievance of the petitioner is in respect of this permission and the construction being undertaken by the respondent No.4. Shri. Oak advances a submission that the Corporation and its Officer were aware that in 7/12 extract which is produced along with the development proposal dated 03.07.2017 submitted by the respondent No.4, the name of the deceased Shri.Janya Rama Vad, predecessor-in-title of the petitioner is recorded as ''protected tenant'' and in spite of this fact being noted, the permission for development was granted in favour of respondent No.4. Shri.Oak further submits that the land belonging to Shri.Janya Ram Vad, on his death is inherited by his legal heirs including the petitioner and respondent No.3 should have ensured that the person applying for development proposal has a proof of entry in the record of rights could have established it and it is but for extraneous consideration that the said entry in favour of the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner is ignored.

5. We have also heard Senior Counsel Shri. Vineet Naik for respondent No.4 and by inviting our attention to the detailed affidavit which is filed by respondent No.4 on 11.12.2018 which alleges that the petitioner is guilty of suppressing relevant material from this Court, including various proceedings initiated by the petitioner on the basis of the alleged successor of deceased Shri.Janya Ram Vad which are pending before the Additional Collector of Thane under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (''MLRC, 1966''). The reliance on the Mutation Entry No.354 of 31.01.1956 is also alleged to be doubtful and validit