The court emphasized that disputed property title claims necessitate resolution through civil litigation, particularly when claims are based on unregistered consent decrees, thereby dismissing the writ petitions.

JUDGMENT

PRAKASH D.NAIK, J. - After the judgment was reserved, the petitions were listed for directions on 7/3/2022 and the learned Counsel for parties were informed that the judgment would be pronounced shortly. The petitions were again listed for directions on 10/3/2022 at the instance of respondentCorporation vide praecipe dtd. 9/3/2022. The Counsel for the petitioners also filed praecipe dtd. 10/3/2022. We have heard the learned Counsel for respondent-Corporation and learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further on the issue of registration of consent decree. Learned Counsel for respondentCorporation placed on record copies of (i) Plaint in Suit (L) No. 20289 of 2021 filed by Samarth Development Corporation and Others; (ii) Interim Application (L) No. 20296 of 2021; (iii) Affidavit-in-Reply of the respondent-Corporation to the Interim Application (L) No. 20296 of 2021; (iv) Interim Application No. 731 of 2022 in Suit No. 42 of 2022 filed by the applicantByramjee Jeejeebhoy Private Limited for intervention in the Suit wherein according to the learned Counsel for the respondentCorporation, the applicant therein has questioned the title of the petitioners. He has also placed on record the judgment of the Supreme Court in ( Ripudaman Singh Vs. Tikka Maheshwar Chand ) (2021)7 S.C.C. 446, which according to him, holds the field. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that the subjectmatter of the Suit (L) No. 20289 of 2021 is different than the subject-matter in the present writ petition. He has placed on record the judgment of the Supreme Court in (Mohammade Yusuf and others Vs. Rajkumar and others) (2020)10 S.C.C. 264. He has pointed out that the said judgment has considered the judgment of the Supreme Court in ( Bhoop Singh Vs. Ram Singh Major and others) (1995)5 S.C.C. 709 relied upon by the respondent-Corporation. The petitions were again closed for judgment.

2. Since both the petitions involve common issue, the petitions are disposed of by common order.

3. The reliefs sought in Writ Petition No. 172 of 2016 are as follows :-

A. That, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction direc ting respondent No. 2, and/or any other concerned Authorities to complete the proc ess of acquisition and to grant monetary compensation to the petitioners under The Right To Fair Compensation and Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitaiton and Resettlement Act, 2013 and/or grant Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) / Development Rights Certificate (DCR) in view of Regulation 34 read with Appendix VII of the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991 in respect of the said land admeasuring 2, 62, 031.0 sq. Metres of the petitioner;

B. That, in the alternative to granting Transfer of Development Rights to the petitioners, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing respondent No. 2, and/or any other concerned Authorities to grant monetary compensation in respect of the said land admeasuring 2, 62, 031.0 sq. Metres belonging to the petitioner;

C. That pending the Hearing and Final disposal of this writ petition :

(i) The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by themselves, their officers, servants and subordinates be restrained by a mandatory order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from in any manner dealing with the said land in pursuance of the reservation of the said land for public purpose.

(ii) The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 be directed to grant TDR/DRC to the petitioners for the said lan