Advocates:
['PRADEEP C MARPAKWAR', 'SANDEEP MARATHE', 'FOR/R', 'COPY SERVED']

1 wp2143.13.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

Writ Petition No. 2143 of 2015

[M/s. Viraj Builders & Developers through its Managing Partner Sau. Vaijayanti

W. Wagh and anr. Vs. Vice-President/Managing Director, Maharashtra Airport

Development Co. Ltd., Mumbai and ors.]

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of

Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order

of directions and Registrar's orders

Shri Pradeep C. Marpakwar, Advocate for the petitioners

Shri Sandeep Marathe, Advocate for the respondent no. 4

Shri A. D. Sonak, AGP for the respondent nos. 2 and 3

CORAM : Prasanna B. Varale, J.

DATE

: 4-1-2016.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioners challenge the order passed by

the Joint Managing Director, Maharashtra Airport

Development Company Ltd. dated 29-12-2014. It is

the submission of the learned counsel for the

petitioners that the property situated at Mauza

Dahegaon, Khasara No. 91 admeasuring 1.16 H.R.

was owned by one Chintaman Maske and the parties

entered into an agreement of sale of the said

property on 26-12-1993. It is the submission of the

learned counsel for the petitioners that the

petitioners have paid full amount of price to the tune

of Rs. 5,72,000/- to the owners. The perusal of the

order passed by the Joint Director reveal that when

the documents were scrutinized, it was revealed that

certain mischief was played in preparation of the

documents and opinion was also sought from the

legal advisor of the respondent no. 2 - Company and

.....2/-

2 wp2143.13.odt

it was opined by the legal advisor that the document

was notarized and was not signed by one Kailas

Maske. Finding that there is some mischief played,

the respondent no. 2 passed the order of cancellation

of option granted to Smt. Vaijayanti Wamanrao

Wagh and referred the matter to the Deputy

Collector, Land Acquisition No. 3, Nagpur.

The short controversy involved in the petition

is an apprehension of the petitioners that the order

passed by the Joint Managing Director would cause

prejudice to the rights of the petitioners who had

purchased the property under bonafide belief and by

payment of the amount as per alleged agreement to

sale. It seems that the apprehension expressed in the

petition is the route cause for filing the petition

which is a premature petition. The matter as per the

order of the Joint Managing Director is referred to

the Deputy Collector. The Deputy Collector is yet to

arrive at any conclusion. The Deputy Collector

would certainly call for record or would conduct

some enquiry and after perusal of the record and

complying with the necessary formalities would pass

an order. That stage is yet to arrive. The only

apprehension of the petitioners at this stage seems to

be a premature ground for petition. As no decision is

taken by the Deputy Collector in view of the

communication dated 16-2-2015, in my opinion,

there is no reason to entertain the present petition.

The interest of the petitioners can be served by

.....3/-

3 wp2143.13.odt

directing the Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition

No. 3, Nagpur that before he arrives at any

conclusion, in view of the order passed by the Joint

Managing Director dated 29-12-2014, he shall afford

an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties

including the petitioners and then pass an

appropriate orders in accordance with the provisions

of law.

Needless to state that if any order is passed by

the Deputy Collector, the petitioner would be entitled

to avail the remedy of approaching appropriate

forum if the petitioner is aggrieved by such a decision

taken by the Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition No.

3, Nagpur.

The writ petition is disposed of in a