CRA 81-2022.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION 81 OF 2022

Sanjay S/o. Shankar Puppal,

(Represented through his General

Power of Attorney holder – Shankar

S/o. Sharnappa Dhare.

..Applicant

V/s.

The Solapur Municipal Corporation &

Ors.

..Respondents

----

Mr. Sanjay S. Puppal, the Applicant in person.

Mr. A. S. Rao, Advocate a/w. R.V. Dighe for Respondent 1.

Mr. Prasad P. Kulkarni for Respondents 5 & 6.

----

CORAM : ROHIT B. DEO, J.

DATE : 15^th JUNE 2022

P.C.

1.

With consent of parties, the Civil Revision Application is finally

heard at the stage of admission.

2.

The applicant is the plaintiff who instituted civil suit against the

respondents seeking the following reliefs:

A) The suit may kindly decreed in toto.

B) This Hon’ble Court may please to declare that, the

plaintiff is having his proprietary right over the Re-

constituted Plot bearing C.T.S. No.665 admeasuring 15.5

sq. mtrs., as per madatory provision of Section 20 of

Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and re-allotment of said

A. A. Mudaliyar page 1 of 12

CRA 81-2022.doc

area of C.T.S. No.665 admeasuring 15.5 sq. mtr to the

defendant no.4 State Govt. during the course of

implementation of Town Planning Scheme No.III, as public

road, is in contra-vention of Section 102 of M.R.T.P. Act

read with Rule 13(1)(4) & (9) of the Maharashtra Town

Planning Scheme rules 1974 and the said area’s allotment

to defendant no.4 is not binding on the plaintiff and

accordingly, further declared that, the plaintiff is still

having his proprietary right over the said C.T.S. No.665

admeasuring 15.5 sq. mtrs., holding the said reconstituted

Plot defendant no.4 as null and void and/or ultra vires ab-

initio.

C) This Hon’ble court may further please to declare that,

the plaintiff is having his proprietary right over the 50 sq.

mtrs area reserved as surrounding area of re-consituted

plot of C.T.S. No.660 admeasuring 307.90 sq. mtrs in

execution of Town Planning Scheme bearing final plot

no.III in the month of May, 1973 on account of non-

compliance of mandatory provision of section 102 and 129

of M.R.T.P Act read with rule 13 of the Maharashtra Town

Planning Scheme Rules, 1974, and the plaintiff is entitled to

establish and/or exercise his proprietary right over the

said 50 sq. mtrs area reserved as surrounding area of re-

constituted plot C.T.S. No.660 admeasuring 307.90 sq.

mtrs and accordingly order to defendant no.1 to 4 to

restitute said area to the plaintiff under doctrine of

restitution principle.

D) This Hon’ble court may please to restrain the defendant

from being creating any illegal obstruction to the plaintiff

from exercising and/or establishing his proprietary

/ownership right over the said reserved restitute

surrounding area of reconstituted plot no.660 which is

admeasuring 50 sq. mtrs and an area admeasuring 15.5 sq.

mtrs of C.T.S. No.665 transferred to defendant no.4 in

violation of mandatory provision of section 102 and 129 of

M.R.T.P. Act and /or with gross violation of Rule 13 of the

Maharashtra Town Planning Scheme Rules 1974

perpetually.

A. A. Mudaliyar page 2 of 12

CRA 81-2022.doc

E) This Hon’ble Court may further please to declare

Building permission granted /sanctioned by the defendant

nos.1 and 2 in favour of the defendant nos.5 and 6, for

constructing the Apartment Building stuled as “Vinayak

Apartment” on the premises of C.T.S. No.660 bearing

Building Plan No.1042 dated 16.10.2000 and Revised

Building Plan No.1365 dated 28.11.2001, are null and void

and/or ultra-vires ab-initio on account of sanctioning the

same by de