-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3455 OF 2011 Vinod Tukaram Adaskar. ..Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others. ..Respondents. Mr. Y. S. Jahagirdar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S. S. Kanetkar for the petitioner. Mrs. Neha Bhide, AGP for R-1 to 3. Mr. Raghuvanshi i/b Ms. Rutuja Ambekar for R-5. Mr. Deepak More for R-16 and 17. Coram : D.K. DESHMUKH & RANJIT MORE, JJ. Date : July 21, 2011. P. C. : 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. The first order, which is challenged in the petition is the order passed by the Deputy Director of Land Records, dated 8th April 2011. Perusal of that order shows that the Director has really heard the applicant only on the question of grant of interim relief but the Director disposed of the revision itself. This obliviously is in breach of the principles of natural justice. Hence, order dated 8th April 2011 passed by the Deputy Director of Lard Records is set aside. He is directed to decide the revision on merits after granting an opportunity of being heard srp -: 2 :- to the parties. While deciding the revision, Dy. Director of Land Records, it is obvious, will decide the revision on the basis of material produced before him, uninfluenced by the administrative directions that may have been issued in the matter by any higher officer. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Corporation, on the basis of complaint made by Mayor, made an order directing the petitioner to stop work, which he was carrying out pursuant to the sanctioned building plan. Considering that the order is made by the Corporation on the basis of complaint made by Mayor, in our opinion, following order would meet the ends of justice. 3. The stop-work order made by the Corporation is set aside. The petitioner would be free to carry on the work on the basis of sanctioned building plan. But the work carried out by the petitioner shall be at his own risk. The petitioner shall not be entitled to claim any equities on the basis of the work that the petitioner carries on. 4. The complaint is made by Mayor to the Deputy Director of -: 3 :- Land Records. Hence, in our opinion, it will be appropriate for the Dy. Director of Land Records to deal with that complaint and make orders thereon in accordance with law. On course, before making any order on that complaint, parties who are likely to be affected by his order, have to be granted an opportunity of being heard. While dealing with the complaint made by Mayor, the Dy. Director shall act in accordance with the law, without being influenced by any administrative direction issued by his superiors. 5. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (Ranjit More, J.) (D.K.Deshmukh, J.)