The main legal point established in the judgment is that the notice under section 51 of the MRTP Act was without jurisdiction, and the UDCPR provisions pressed in service were not applicable to affect the facts of the case. Additionally, the respondents could not issue directives to the Registering Authority.

JUDGMENT :

R.D. Dhanuka, J.

1. Rule. Mr.Patil, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 waives service. Mr. Patel, learned Additional Government Pleader waives service for the respondent nos.3 to 6. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the notice dated 2nd September, 2022 issued under section 51 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short “MRTP Act”) and also for quashing and setting aside the letter dated 19th September, 2022 annexed at Exhibit “L” and Exhibit “N” to the petition respectively.

3. The petitioner also prays for a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the letter dated 19th September, 2022 addressed to respondent nos.3 and 5, annexed at Exhibit “O” to the petition.

4. On 23rd March, 2010, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondent nos.1 and 2 to hand over their plot subject to the development rights being given to them. On 24th December, 2018, the respondent nos.1 and 2 granted permission to the petitioner to develop the said property however on the condition that 496.47 sq, mtrs. of built up commercial area to be given to the respondent nos.1 and 2 as per the Solapur Development Control Regulations (for short “Solapur DCR”).

5. During the period 27th March, 2019 and 1st July, 2022, the respondent nos.1 and 2 sanctioned the plans for plots from time to time. It is the case of the petitioner that out of the four wings, three wings are almost completed and the construction of the fourth wing is at the advance stage.

6. On 8th December, 2020, the petitioner and the respondent nos.1 and 2 executed a registered sale deed whereby 496.47 sq. mtrs. had been handed over by the petitioner to the respondent nos.1 and 2 and the same has been accepted by them.

7. On 2nd September, 2022, the respondent nos.1 and 2 issued a notice under section 51 of the MRTP Act to the petitioner informing that the plans would be revoked, as the area to be handed over to the respondent nos.1 and 2 as per Solapur DCR was 1635.45 sq. mtrs and not 496.47 sq. mtrs. The petitioner responded to the said notice dated 2nd September, 2022 by a reply dated 9th September, 2022 and called upon the respondent nos.1 and 2 to withdraw the said notice.

8. On 19th September, 2022, the respondent nos.1 and 2 addressed a letter to the respondents no.3 and 5 directing them not to register any agreements for sale in respect of the subject property. The petitioner thus filed this petition for seeking various reliefs.

9. This matter was argued by the learned counsel for the parties on 4th October, 2022 when the learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation sought time to take instructions from the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Solapur to make an appropriate statement before this Court. This Court granted ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (g) of the petition.

10. Mr.Patil, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 , on instructions, states that an appropriate order may be passed by this Court. The Municipal Corporation is not agreeable to withdraw the impugned notice. Statement is accepted.

11. Dr.Sathe, learned senior counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the various annexures of the petition, including the agreement annexed at Exhibit “A” to the petition and also Regulation 9 of Solapur DCR, Table 3, II Commercial (C) (b), District Centre (C2) and clause (c) (for short “the said clause (c) of Solapur DCR”) thereof annexed at Exhibit “B” to the petition.

12. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the notice under section 51 of the MRTP Act itself is totally without jurisdiction. It is submitted that the petitioner has already completed the work substantially. He invited our attention to the said notice issued under section 51 of