State of Maharashtra v. Nos

Mr.

4. & & & JJ. JJ. JJ. 2006 2006 2006 The issue of law which arises in this petition Writ Petition No.3119

2003. similar reasons judgment Petition No.3119 of 2003 this petition is also disposed of by issuing the following directions:- For Writ Mr. Parish Petitioner. Mr. Mrs. P.C. . (i) The Letter/Circular dated 31st October, 2001 to extent directs occupants from the Government to produce a N.O.C. from the Collector is without the authority of law. (ii) However, considering the object behind issuing Letter/Circular 31st October, 2001 direct respondent No.2 application received respect received Government provisions Land Revenue Code enactments intimate details Respondent No.1 within receipt Application. On receipt application -2- open to respondent No.1 to take such steps in law which they are entitled to. (iii) The order dated 15th March, 1999 issued under Section 154 of M.R.T.P. Act is illegal, null and void order. (iv) The respondent No.1 before taking any steps shall notice occupants and/or a transferee occupant giving opportunity, appropriate orders which they are entitled to under the law in force and by following due procedure.

(v) Considering the controversy we need not decide issues raised issues consideration by the appropriate Authority of the respondent No.1 who is vested with such power. (vi) The amount of Rs.50,000/- which has been deposited continue remain deposited Collector/Respondent No.1 action according law. If hearing petitioner/occupant Authority conclusion amount due and payable the same shall be refunded to the petitioner/ocupant. (vii) The respondent No.1 in the case of those petitions, disposed Court, commence process within complete the process not later than nine months from today. (viii) In so far as the consequential orders passed by respondent No.2 Letter/Circular 31st October, 2001 effect consequently quashed aside. We, however, -3- respondent Planning Authority exercise whatever powers provisions Maharashtra Regional No.2 Town Planning Act, 1966 and the D.C.Regulations and this order will not stand in their way.

(ix) In so far as the undertakings are concerned, the petitioner released undertakings. However, petitioner amount undertaking Government fixing a policy, petitioner liable, subject rights petitioners to challenge the validity of the order passed on that policy. (x) In the event the petitioner does not have the original document application petitioner/ocupant respondent No.1 document available enable petitioner/occupant before respondent No.1 or it any authority before whom the proceedings will commence. . Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. Liberty to the parties to apply. REBELLO, J.) (F.I.F.I.F.I. REBELLO, J.) REBELLO, J.) V. MOHTA, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (ANOOP