WP 7382-09 1 spb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7382 OF 2009 Gyan Khasturi, earlier known as Manohar Jiyaldas Chhablani ... Petitioner Versus Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner for Evacuee Compensation Pool Properties-cum- Custodian of Evacuee Properties & Ors. ...Respondents --- Mr. J.S. Chandnani for the Petitioner. Mr. S.N.Bhosale, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1,2 and 4. Mr. Vijay Patil for Respondent No.3. --- CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 17th AUGUST, 2010. P.C.: 1 Heard Mr. Chandnani, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. Bhosale, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. Patil, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.5. 2 This petition takes exception to the order dated 24.12.2008 passed by the respondent no.1 in revision petition no. 5429 of 1998. 3 In pursuance of the Sanad, allegedly issued in favour of the petitioner by Managing Officer and Assistant Administrator, Ulhasnagar, Camp No.5 on 28.05.1993, the petitioner applied to the respondent no.5 for building permission. However, the permission was rejected on 28.11.1994 WP 7382-09 2 i.e. after the period of 60 days on the ground that “Title is not clear as per the office record. Yet C.D. verification is not received from S.D.O.”. The petitioner challenged the rejection of the building permission by filing writ petition no. 5429 of 1998. The said petition was disposed of on 26th June, 2008. Operative part of the order reads as follows : “a) In case, the Municipal Council secure order from any appropriate authority declaring that the Sanad granted in favour of the petitioner of the land in question to be illegal or invalid, the petitoiner shall not be entitled to raise construction in accordance with the building plan submitted by the petitioner. b) However, in case, the Municipal Council does not succeed in obtaining such an order within a period of six months from today, the Municipal Council shall issue an order sanctioning building plan submitted by the petitioner in the year 1994. c) It is clarified that in case, the Municipal Council is required to clear the building plan of the petitioner pursuant to the order, the Municipal Council shall be at liberty to varify whether the building plan submitted by the petitioner is in accordance with the building regulations that may be in existence today.” 4 The S.D.O. Ulhasnagar had made reference in the year 1995 to the respondent no.1, regarding issuance of Sanad in respect of the disputed property in favour of the petitioner and the same is pending. After the Division Bench order, mentioned above, the respondent no.5 moved the respondent no.1- Settlement Commissioner for the early decision on the reference of the S.D.O.. The respondent no.1 accordingly, WP 7382-09 3 passed the order on 24.12.2008, thereby recording a prima facie satisfaction that the conveyance deed / Sanad issued in favour of the petitioner is irregular and the petitioner was directed not to make any construction on the land in dispute. 5 Respondent no.1 passed this order, as he found that Sanad/ Conveyance deed in favour of the petitioner does not contain number and date of the allotment order. He also found that the date of the undertaking executed and the receipt number of the amount paid has also not been mentioned in the conveyance deed nor it is entered in the Register of the Sub Divisional Officer. 6 Mr. Chandnani, learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order mainly on the ground that the same is contrary to the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court. Mr.Patil and Mr. Bhosale, learned AGP appearing for the respective respondents on the contrary supported the impugned order. 7 Having considered the rival submissions and having gone through the impugned order, I do not find any merit in the petition. The Division Bench by order dated 26th June, 2008 passed in writ petition no. 5429/1998 gave some directions to the respondent no.5. However, there are no directions to respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 has initiated proceedings pursuant to the report of the S.D.O., Ulhasnagar, recording WP 7382-09 4 the irregularity in the allotment of Sanad/Conveyance deed in favour of the petitioner. The respondent no.1 has inquired into the said aspect. However, relevant papers are lying in the custody of the Anti Corruption Bureau, Thane and therefore, final decision could not be taken. However, prima facie satisfaction is recorded that the conveyance /Sanad in favour of the petitioner is irregular. In the circumstances, I do not find any merit in the contention of the Mr. Chandnani that the impugned order is contrary to the order passed by the Division Bench in writ petition no. 5429 of 1998. In my opinion, there is no prejudice to the petitioner if the respondent no.1 is allowed to complete proceedings which are initiated on report of the S.D.O. 8 In the circummstances, I dispose of this petition by passing the following order : ORDER i. The writ petition is dismissed. ii. Respondent no.1 is, however, directed to dispose of the revision petition no. 5429 of 1998 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within the period of three months from the date of the receipt of this order. The respondent no.1, if necessary, may call for the papers from A.C.B., Thane. (R. V. MORE, J.)