Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. Per contra, learned senior counsel Mr.Deshpande appearing for the Respondent No.2/corporation has canvassed that petitioner has no right, title or interest either in site No.149 or the road in question. It has no locus standi to claim any relief against the respondents. . The maintainability of the petition is strongly challenged by him. It is further submitted that gift deed, allotment of the land and lease deed were not challenged and therefore petitioner is estopped from claiming any relief. It is submitted that all relevant facts were disclosed before division bench in Writ Petition No.8517 of 2024. The allegations of suppression of facts, fraud and collusion are refuted. It is further contended that by filing written statement, the corporation had brought to the notice of the Civil Court as well as to present petitioner that Writ Petition No.8517 of 2024 had been filed but the petitioner did not intervene in the petition. Learned counsel would submit that the corporation is under statutory obligation to provide road to the landlocked land. It has secured permissions from the competent authority for the felling of trees and it is developing the garden to safeguard the interest of the local residents and no prejudice would be caused to them as well as environment.

10. Learned counsel Mr.Adwant for the Respondent No.3 would support the submissions of the Respondent No.2/coporation. Additionally, it is submitted that by spending huge money, the land of 3600 Sq.mt. of plot of C.T.S No.15735/1/P is being allotted to the Respondent No.3 for running a school. It's a landlocked plot and it is not possible to start construction unless there is approach road. He would point out various provisions from Development, Control and Promotional regulations, M.R.T.P Act and The Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act,1949 to buttress that to provide approach road is a legal duty. It is further submitted that after following due procedure of law it has been allotted a plot with which the petitioner is not concerned. It is further submitted that conduct of the petitioner is objectionable because for self-same relief it has chosen two forums. It failed to prosecute suit diligently.

28. It is the look out of the corporation to provide road to landlocked plots. The manner in which and the site from which the it is to be provided is its discretion. If the intervenor or adjoining owners or stakeholders are offended by action of the corporation then they can resort to the remedy available in law. The recalling of order passed in Writ Petition No.8517 of 2024 can not be the recourse. No rights and liabilities of the parties are decided as such by the order in question.

. The judgment can not be made applicable because that is distinguishable on facts.

F) Shridhar and Another vs. Revanna and Others reported in (2020) 11 SCC 221.

. We have gone through paragraph No.25 of the judgment which explains what is the 'public duty' of the municipal corporation. We have already observed that corporation is duty bound to provide approach road for the landlocked properties. We derive support from the ratio laid down in paragraph Nos.25, 26 and 27 of the judgment in observing that in the present case also, Respondent/corporation is obliged to provide road to the Respondent No.3.