1 wp893.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 893 OF 2011 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. R.R. Mantri, Advocate for the petitioners. 1. The petitioners-plaintiffs' application for deletion of two issues has been partly allowed by Civil Judge, Senior Division. Issue no.6 is deleted as it is found that it is already covered by issue no.1. The issue no.2 requiring him to prove the ownership has not been deleted. 2. Advocate Mr. Mantri for petitioners contends that the suit is only for declaration and no question of ownership falls for adjudication therein. According to him, whether the petitioners-plaintiffs have got deemed sanction or not is the only issue. If proposal for construction submitted by the petitioners is not in accordance with law, the same can be rejected. 3. Perusal of the written statement shows that the defendant Municipal Corporation has contended that the 2 wp893.11 suit property is reserved as open space in layout and it can not be utilised for construction purpose. Further it has contended that though the opportunity was given to petitioners-plaintiff, they have not removed objection and hence his building plan was rejected. 4. In view of this material, I do not find anything wrong with the view taken by the trial Court. There is no jurisdictional error or perversity. Hence, Petition is rejected. No costs. 5. Needless to mention that the contentions on merits about the relevance of this aspect are kept open for arguments before the trial Court at final argument stage. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE. 15.02.2011 gas/wp893.11