Bombay High Court
M/S. Echjay Industries Private Limited vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its Urban ... on 29 January, 2019
Bench: Ranjit More, Bharati H. Dangre
3-wp-2977-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2977 OF 2017
M/s.Echjay Industries Private Limited ..Petitioner
V/s.
State of Maharashtra
Through its Urban Development Dept & Ors. .. Respondents
----
Mr.Vishwajit Sawant a/w Mr.Nikhil Patil and Ms.Warisha Parkar i/b
Parinam Law Associates for the Petitioner.
Mrs.M.P. Thakur, AGP for the Respondent-State.
Mr.A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate a/w Mr.J.J. Carloes i/b MGK
Legal for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
----
CORAM : RANJIT MORE &
SMT.BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ.
DATE : 29th JANUARY 2019
P.C.
1. Heard Mr.Sawant, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Ms.Thakur, learned AGP for Respondent No.1 and Mr.Sakhare,
learned Senior Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 14.02.2017
passed by the Minster of State in Urban Development Department
N.S. Kamble page 1 of 4
::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 01:22:13 :::
3-wp-2977-2017
thereby rejecting the petitioner's Appeal under Section 47 of the
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act (for short 'MRTP
Act').
2. The petitioner preferred an application to Respondent
No.2 for regularization of the subject structure under Section 44 of
the MRTP Act, and the said application came to be rejected.
Thereafter the petitioner approached the Hon'ble State Minister
under Section 47 of the MRTP Act. The petitioner's appeal is
rejected solely on the ground that there is dispute about the
ownership of land in question and therefore the Appeal do not
warrant any interference.
3. Having considered the rival submission and having
gone through the petition along with annexures, we find the
petitioner has purchased 0H 92R from Gut No.316/01 and 0H 47.8R
from Gut No.330, Village-Kasara Amboli, Taluka-Mulshi, District-
Pune by Registered Sale Deed. It appears that the petitioner has
constructed a structure on the said land without permission from the
Planning Authority. The structure being unauthorized, he is
constrained to make an application under Section 44 of the MRTP
Act. The Respondent No.4 dispute the Sale Deed/Correction Deed,
N.S. Kamble page 2 of 4
::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 01:22:13 :::
3-wp-2977-2017
however, as on today he has not approached any Civil Court.
4. It appears that there is dispute between the party
regarding access to the said property purchased by the petitioner.
The respondent No.4 deny that the said property is purchased by the
petitioner. However petitioners place reliance on the Mutation
Entry regarding the property purchased by the petitioner.
It is by now well settled position of law that Mutation
Entries are effected for fiscal purpose and does not create or
extinguish any right nor does a Mutation Entry confer the tittle.
Between the parties as of today no issue of title is pending in any
Civil Court.
5. In above facts and circumstances, in our considered
opinion, the Hon'ble State Minster could not have dismissed the
petitioners Appeal on the ground that there is dispute regarding title
of the petitioner. In our view, the Hon'ble State Minster ought to
have disposed of the petitioners appeal on merits.
6. For the aforesaid reason we, dispose of the petition by
passing the following order.
N.S. Kamble page 3 of 4
::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 01:22:13 :::
3-wp-2977-2017
ORDER
(i) The impugned order dated 14.02.2017 passed by the Minster of State is quashed and set aside.
(ii) The matter is remanded back to the Hon'ble State Minster for fresh decision on merits.
All points and contentions of the respective parties are kept open.
(iii) Needless to mention that Hon'ble State Minster shall take decision after hearing all concerned as expeditiously as possible and preferably within the period of three months from the date of receipt of the said order.
(iv) During the pendency and final disposal of the said appeal before the Hon'ble State Minster both the parties shall maintain status-quo as of today regarding the offending structure.
(SMT.BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.)
N.S. Kamble page 4 of 4
::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 01:22:13 :::