1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1135 OF 2009 Smt.Muktabai S. Patil and others Petitioners versus Smt.Kamlibai H. Thombre, since deceased through her LRs and others Respondents I.R.Kulkarni for petitioners. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 18th January 2010 PC :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners are the original plaintiffs. The petitioners have filed a suit for a declaration that the suit lands are of the joint use, occupation and cultivation of the plaintiffs as well as first to third defendants. A declaration is sought that the agreements entered into and executed by and between the first to fifth respondents and sixth to ninth respondents are null and void. It appears that an application was made in the said suit for ad-interim order of directing the sixth and seventh defendants (6th and 7th respondents) to maintain status-quo. The said relief was granted by the Trial Court. Thereafter an application was made by 2 the petitioners for impleading the planning authority i.e. the Municipal Corporation as a party defendant. The said application was made on the ground that notwithstanding the opposition of the petitioners, a plan for development of the suit lands has been sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation. It is pointed out that notwithstanding the order of status-quo, the concerned respondents are proceeding with the construction. It is submitted that the Municipal Corporation could not have sanctioned the plan when there was an order of status-quo operating. By the impugned judgement and order, the said application made by the petitioners has been rejected. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have challenged the right of the concerned respondents to develop the suit lands and notwithstanding the ad- interim relief of status-quo, the Municipal Corporation has sanctioned the plans. He, therefore, submitted that the Municipal Corporation was a necessary and/or a proper party. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. As stated earlier, the suit is filed essentially for a declaration that the petitioners and first to third defendants are in joint use, occupation and cultivation of the suit lands. If there is an order of status-quo operating against the concerned respondents, it is for the petitioners to file appropriate 3 proceedings in that behalf. If development permission has been granted by the planning authority under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, a separate statutory remedy is available to the petitioners. Looking to the facts of the case, the Municipal Corporation is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit. Hence, the Trial Court was right when application for impleadment of the Municipal Corporation as a party defendant was rejected. There is no merit in the petition and the same is rejected. However, remedy of the petitioners against the defendants as well as remedy available to the petitioners against the Municipal Corporation are expressly kept open. (A.S.OKA, J.)