{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6396 OF 2009 1. Smt.Navalkarbai w/o Babulal Dangare Age-63 years, Occ-Household R/o Mahada Colony, Near Baba Petrol Pump Aurangabad 2. Dharamsing s/o Harchand Rajput Age-48 years, Occ-Business R/o Garkheda Parisar Aurangabad PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Industries, Energy and Labour Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. Inspector General of Registration & Collector of Stamps M.S.Pune Ground Floor, Opposite to Vidhan Bhavan (Council Hall) New Administration Building Pune-411 001 3. Deputy Inspector General of Registration Aurangabad Division, Central Administrative Building, 2nd Floor (South East Cabin) Collector Office Compound Aurangabad 4. Regional Officer, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Aurangabad RESPONDENTS {2} ....... Mr.S.S.Thombre, Advocate for petitioners Mr.N.N.Jadhav, AGP for respondents No.1 to 3 Mr.S.S.Dande, Advocate for respondent No.4 ....... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6399 OF 2009 Sagunabai w/o Yadavrao Sawant Age-70 years, Occ-Household R/oGandheli, Tq & Dist-Aurangabad PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Industries, Energy and Labour Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. Inspector General of Registration & Collector of Stamps M.S.Pune Ground Floor, Opposite to Vidhan Bhavan (Council Hall) New Administration Building Pune-411 001 3. Deputy Inspector General of Registration Aurangabad Division, Central Administrative Building, 2nd Floor (South East Cabin) Collector Office Compound Aurangabad 4. Regional Officer, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Aurangabad RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.S.S.Thombre, Advocate for petitioners Mr.V.B.Ghatge, AGP for respondents No.1 to 3 Mr.S.S.Dande, Advocate for respondent No.4 ....... {3} [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE: 25th September 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER A.V.POTDAR, J.) : 1. Both these petitions are filed on the same set of facts and common question of law is involved in these petitions and hence these petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties these petitions are heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. By the present petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the letters dated 14.11.2007, 18.12.2007 and 02.01.2008 issued by Regional Officer MIDC, Aurangabad, Inspector General of Registration, Pune and Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Aurangabad, respectively, thereby refusing registration of the lands notified for SEZ under notification dated 04.01.2007. 4. During the course of submissions, our attention is invited to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court passed in Writ Petitions No.3941/2009, 3944/2009, 4193/2009 and 4194/2009 dated 14.08.2009, to which both of us are parties. We have observed in the said judgment that since no steps are taken for acquisition of the lands, as required u/s 32 (1) and (3) of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, the issuance of directions prohibiting to register sale transactions of {4} the lands in the notified area itself is without jurisdiction. We have also observed that the directions issued vide impugned letters are without jurisdiction and accordingly we have quashed and set aside the communications dated 14.11.2007, 18.12.2007 and 02.01.2008 issued by Regional Officer MIDC, Aurangabad, Inspector General of Registration, Pune and Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Aurangabad, respectively. 5. Learned counsel for the parties fairly conceded that the ratio laid down in the above referred judgment of the Division Bench is squarely applicable to the present case. In the premise, without touching the factual aspects of the matter, we allow these petitions in terms of the observations made in the above referred judgment. Accordingly, we quash and set aside the impugned communications dated 14.11.2007, 18.12.2007 and 02.01.2008 issued by Regional Officer MIDC, Aurangabad, Inspector General of Registration, Pune and Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Aurangabad, respectively. 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp6396-09