K.M. Thaker, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.P. Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Manan Mehta, learned AGP. Mr. M.D. Pandya, learned advocate for respondent No. 2 is not present and Mr. Nilesh Pandya, learned advocate for the respondent No. 3 is also not present. Ms. Nair, learned advocate has appeared for newly added respondent No. 5.

2. In present petition the petitioner has prayed, inter-alia, that:-

"32 (A) The Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the instructions contained in the communication dated 5.2.2001 addressed by the Collector, Baroda to the Municipal Commissioner, Baroda Municipal Corporation at Annexure-L hereto do not apply to the land in question and, therefore, the respondent corporation is under an obligation to sanction the plans submitted by the petitioner ignoring the said instructions.

(B) The Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondent No. 4 herein to inform respondent No. 3 herein that the instructions contained in the communication at Annexure-L hereto do not apply to the land of the petitioner and therefore, the plans submitted by the petitioner may be sanctioned ignoring the said instructions"

3. The petition with above mentioned request came to be admitted vide order dated 28.2.2003. The said order reads thus:-

"Ld. Senior Counsel Mr. A.J. Patel appearing for the petitioner states that one petition filed by Baluben Somabhai Shrimali being Spl. Civil Application No. 766/2002 has been admitted by this Court which involves similar issues. Hence, Rule. To be heard with Spl. C.A. No. 766/2002."

4. So far as Special Civil Application No. 766/2002 (which is referred to by the Court in the order dated 28.2.2003) is concerned the Court is informed that the said petition was filed by some other party in respect of some other land and the said petition is disposed of vide order dated 2.2.2013 and that against the said order dated 2.2.2013 LPA is filed (i.e. Letter Patents Appeal (ST) No. 241 of 2014).

5. Mr. Majumdar, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that subject matter of present petition is not connected with said petition and that this petition can be decided independent of the said petition.

6. After this petition came to be admitted vide order dated 28.2.2003 several civil applications came to be filed by the petitioner from time to time and different orders came to be passed in such civil applications. The petitioner has placed reliance on order dated 25.4.2007 in CA No. 5671/2007 and order dated 30.10.2012 in CA No. 11881/2011. The said orders read thus:-

"ORDER IN CA NO. 5671/2007

Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Maulik Nanavatiwaives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 4.

2. Heard the learned advocates on interim relief. Pending this petition, the respondents are directed to decide the application made by the petitioner herein under section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and under section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 within three months from today.

3. The petitioner shall pay the amount of premium/conversion charges that may be determined by the concerned authority. Such payment shall be subject to the result of the petition. In the event the petitioner, succeeds in this petition, she shall be entitled to claim the refund of the said amount. In that eventuality, the petitioner may also claim the interest over the said amount. Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.

(Emphasis supplied)

ORDER IN CA No. 11881/2011

1. By an order dated 12.6.2012, this Court had passed an order in this application to be heard along with the main matter.

2. Mr. A.J. Patel, learned advocate for the applicant-original petitioner states that as per the directions issued by this Court in the earlier order, the applicant-original petitioner had alrea