1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3478 OF 2010 Shantilal S/o Motilal Kankariya } Age : 55 Years, Occ. Agri/ Business } R/o : Gandheli, Tq. & Dist. : } Aurangabad. } .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra } Through its Secretary } of Industrial Energy & Labour } Department, Govt. of Maharashtra } Mantralaya, Mumbai . } 2. The Inspector General of } Registration and Collector } of Stamp, Maharashtra State, } Pune , Ground floor, opposite } to Vividh Bhavan, (Council Hall), } New Administration Building, } Pune – 411 001. } 3. The Deputy Inspector General } of Registration, Aurangabad } Division, Central Administrative } Building, II Floor (South East Cabin) } Collector office compound, } Aurangabad. 4. The Regional Officer } Maharashtra Industrial Development } Corporation, Aurangabad. } .... RESPONDENTS 2 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3480 OF 2010 Vishal S/o Shantilal Kankariya } Age : 28 Years, Occ. Agri/ Business } R/o : Gandheli, Tq. & Dist. : } Aurangabad. } .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra } Through its Secretary } of Industrial Energy & Labour } Department, Govt. of Maharashtra } Mantralaya, Mumbai . } 2. The Inspector General of } Registration and Collector } of Stamp, Maharashtra State, } Pune , Ground floor, opposite } to Vividh Bhavan, (Council Hall), } New Administration Building, } Pune – 411 001. } 3. The Deputy Inspector General } of Registration, Aurangabad } Division, Central Administrative } Building, II Floor (South East Cabin) } Collector office compound, } Aurangabad. 4. The Regional Officer } Maharashtra Industrial Development } Corporation, Aurangabad. } .... RESPONDENTS 3 Mr. M.K.Goyanka, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. A.V.Gondhalekar, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. S.S.Dande, Advocate for respondent no. 4. CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 27/04/2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER – S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, these petitions are heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By the present petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners pray for directions that the impugned letter dated 14/11/2007 issued by respondent no. 4, letter dated 18/12/2007 issued by respondent no. 2 and the letter dated 2/1/2008 issued by respondent no. 3 thereby refusing to register the instrument, be quashed and set aside. 3. We have heard Mr. M.K.Goyanka, Advocate for petitioner, Mrs. A.V.Gondhalekar, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State and Mr. S.S.Dande, Advocate for respondent no. 4. 4. The petitioners were desirous of selling their property and 4 for that purpose were required to execute a registered conveyance. The respondents vide the impugned communication, communicated the petitioners that the conveyance can not be registered in view of the letter issued by respondent no. 3. 5. The learned counsel for respondent no. 4 states that the said communication has been withdrawn and by letter dated 4/2/2010, respondent nos. 2 and 3 have been informed that the sale deeds can be registered as per law. 6. In view of the fact that respondent no. 3 has withdrawn its earlier letter putting embargo on the registration, we direct the respondents to register the conveyance submitted by the petitioners, if otherwise, it confirms to all other requirements as per law. 7. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. The parties may act upon copy of this Judgment duly authenticated by the Court Shirastedar. [ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] [ P.V.HARDAS ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 3478.10 & 3480.2010 ( J ) 5