wp7106.08 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7106 OF 2008 Mahendra s/o Rameshwar Peety, R/o-Jalna, Tq. & Dist-Jalna ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032, 2) The Director, Town Planning, Maharashtra State, Pune. 3) The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Jalna. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.A.B. Kale Advocate h/f. Shri. S.B. Patil Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri.H.K. Munde Advocate for Respondent No.3. ... wp7106.08 2 CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND T.V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATE : 6TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. The Petitioner challenges notice dated 20th September, 2008, issued by the Municipal Council, Jalna under Section 53 (1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, stating therein that construction over the subject property was carried out without permission. The Petitioner was intimated that he should remove the construction within one month. 3. Learned counsel Shri. Kale appearing for the Petitioner submits that application seeking permission for construction was filed with the Municipal Authorities, inspite of the same, the wp7106.08 3 Municipal Council did not communicate its decision to the Petitioner. In view of provisions of Section 45 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, the permission is deemed to have been granted. The Petitioner, therefore, prays for injunction restraining the Respondents from demolishing of the structure. 4. The Respondents filed affidavit in reply. The Respondent No.3 Municipal Council contends in the reply that the construction was carried out on the subject property, without permission of the Municipal Council and the said property comes under reserved zone for industrial purposes, whereas the construction was carried out by the Petitioner for using it as 'Mangal Karyalaya'. 5. The Respondent State filed affidavit in reply. It is contended on behalf of the State that there is no proposal received from the Municipal Council in respect of modification of development wp7106.08 4 plan in respect of subject land converting it from industrial to residential purpose. 6. Learned counsel Shri. Kale submits that Municipal Council had already initiated steps to collect municipal taxes in respect of subject construction. Civil Suit has already been filed by the Petitioner, wherein order of status-quo was granted by the Civil Court. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Municipal Council is preparing proposal for modification of development plan, wherein it is likely that the Municipal Council would show the subject construction falling in residential zone. Leaned counsel Shri. Munde for Municipal Council submits that no such modification has been finalized by the Municipal Council. We do not propose to address this issue being premature at this stage. wp7106.08 5 8. In the facts of the case and in view of stand adopted by the Respondents, we are of the view that issues raised by the Petitioner relates to question of facts which could be raised before a Civil Court. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. We do not express any opinion on the merits of the matter. 9. The parties shall maintain status quo in respect of subject construction, as on today, for a period of four weeks from today. [T.V. NALAWADE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/SEPT11