1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7958 OF 2009 M/s.Mahanagar Developers Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and others Respondents Mr.S.M.Gorwadkar for petitioner. Mr.R.M.Patne, AGP for respondents 1 to 4. CORAM : R.V.MORE, J. DATE : 12th July 2010 PC : 1. Heard Mr.Gorwadkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Patne, learned AGP for the respondents. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. The petition is directed against an order dated 18th August 2009 by which the first respondent dismissed the application filed by Bhaudas Ramchandra Katkar and thirteen others and directed to cancel all the mutation entries in respect of Survey No.129/1-A admeasuring 2.49 hectares situated at Yerwada, Pune (hereinafter referred to as "the said land"). The said Bhanudas Ramchandra Katkar and thirteen filed an application for a direction to the revenue authorities to enter their names as owners/occupiers of the said land. The impugned order indicates that 2 the said land belongs to the Government free from assessment and, therefore, the application of Bhanudas Katkar and thirteen others came to be dismissed. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that they purchased the said land from Tarabai Rajguru and 24 others by a registered sale deed dated 25th November 2008. It is further alleged by the petitioner that the name of Tarabai and others were already entered into the record of rights vide Mutation Entry No.4909 and after the transaction of the registered sale deed by the petitioner, the petitioner's name was recorded into the record of rights vide Mutation Entry No.5134. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of clause (2) of the operative part of the impugned order, the mutation entry in favour of petitioner's predecessor- in-title as well as petitioner stood cancelled without even affording an opportunity of being heard. 4. The petitioner's predecessor-in-title Tarabai and others preferred Writ Petition No.7721 of 2009 challenging the order impugned in the present petition on the ground that the impugned order was passed without affording an opportunity of being heard and/or without impleading them as party to the proceedings. This Court disposed off the said writ petition by order dated 10th November 2009. The impugned order and particularly paragraph 2 of the operative part of the impugned order was set aside with liberty to the Government to initiate independent proceedings in accordance with law. 3 5. The present petitioner being a successor-in-title of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.7721 of 2009 and since it has neither been impleaded as a party to the proceedings before the respondent no.1 nor has been given an opportunity of being heard, the impugned order qua the petitioner also deserves to be quashed and set aside. Paragraph 2 of the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. Ordered accordingly. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). 6. It is made clear that the above order does not preclude the respondents from initiating independent proceedings, if they so desire and advised, for cancelling the Mutation Entry No.5134 or any other entry in respect of land Survey No.129/1-A (Old Survey No.129/1/1) admeasuring 2.49 hectares after following principles of natural justice and in accordance with law. (R.V.MORE, J.)