Advocates:
['PV VAIDYA', 'KETKI JALTARE VAIDYA', 'MUKESH V SAMARTH', 'FOR/R', 'ASHISH C WASNIK', 'FOR/R', 'VISHWAS SHRIDHAR KUKDAY', 'FOR/R', 'PRAKASHCHANDRA SHAMRAO TEMBHARE']

2503wp1943.14.odt

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

WRIT PETITION NO.1943/2014

Pritam s/o Madhaorao Bakde and others

...Versus...

Nagpur Improvement Trust, Nagpur, through its Chairman and others

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,

Court's or Judge's orders

appearances, Court's orders of directions

and Registrar's orders

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Shri P.V. Vaidya, Advocate for petitioners

Shri M.V. Samarth, Advocate for respondent no.1

Shri P.S. Tembhare, Advocate for respondent no.2

Shri A.C. Wasnik, Advocate for respondent no.3

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND

A.M. BADAR, JJ.

DATE : 25.03.2015

By this petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the

respondent no.1 - Nagpur Improvement Trust to take action

against the illegal construction made by the respondent no.2 –

Society under the provisions of Section 7 of the Maharashtra

Gunthewari Developments (Regularisation, Upgradation and

Control) Act, 2001.

It is the case of the petitioners that the land was

purchased by the Society, from which the petitioners had

purchased plots of land, from the original owner in the year

1982. It is stated that the vendor-original owner sold the same

land to the respondent no.2 – Society in the year 1989. Both

these Societies approached the Nagpur Improvement Trust for

regularization of the plots in the layout. The applications made by

2503wp1943.14.odt

2

both the Societies were rejected. The petitioners herein filed Writ

Petition No.1794/2009 for a direction to the Nagpur

Improvement Trust to demolish the construction made by the

Members of the respondent no.2 - Society on the plots illegally

purchased by them. The said writ petition was disposed of in view

of the statement made by the Counsel for the Nagpur

Improvement Trust that the Nagpur Improvement Trust would

initiate action in terms of the provisions of the Gunthewari Act.

After the order dated 28.4.2009 was passed in Writ Petition

No.1794/2009, several plot holders filed suits in the civil court.

The trial Court has decreed the suits filed by the plot holders of

the respondent no.2 – Society and it is declared by the trial Court

that the plaintiffs therein are in lawful possession of the suit

property and they are eligible for seeking regularization of the

plots under the Gunthewari Act. By this petition, the petitioners

have again sought a direction to the Nagpur Improvement Trust

to initiate action against the Members of the respondent no.2 –

Society under the provisions of Section 7 of the Gunthewari Act.

On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we

find that the petitioners have filed the instant petition with a view

to circumvent or bye-pass the decree passed in the civil suits filed

by the Members of the respondent no.2 - Society. In the suits filed

by the Members of the respondent no.2 – Society, the trial Court

has held that the Members are in lawful possession of the suit

property and they are eligible for regularization under the

Gunthewari Act. If the petitioners are really aggrieved by the

judgment in the suits filed by the Members of the respondent

no.2 - Society, the petitioners have other remedies. Instead of

2503wp1943.14.odt

3

availing proper remedy, the petitioners have approached this

Court in writ jurisdiction with a view to circumvent the decree

passed by the trial Court in the cases of the Members of the

respondent no.2 - Society without joining the Members of the

respondent no.2 - Society as parties to this petition.

In the circumstances of the case, we are not inclined

to entert