1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY : AURANGABAD BENCH WRIT PETITION NO.5491 OF 2008 Fashion Suiting Pvt. Ltd., 3 Chhabra Mansion Pur Road, Bhilwada (Rajasthan) Through Power of Attorney, Rameshchandra Bhavarlal Kachhara, age 48 years, occ. business, R/o. Anandsagar Society, CIDCO, Nanded. -- - - - Petitioner versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Latur. 3. The Police Inspector, Shivaji Chowk Police Station, Latur. - - - - - Respondents Shri A. H. Kasliwal, Advocate h/ for Mrs. N. N. Gangwal (Jain), Advocate for petitioner. Shri K. G. Patil, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondents Nos.1 to 3. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. Dated : 8th September 2009 2 ORAL ORDER : [ Per B. R. GAVAI, J. ] 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The petition basically raises grievance that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 de hors provisions of law are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner and are forcibly restraining the petitioner from continuing the activities which he is entitled to continue in accordance with law. 3. It appears that there is some dispute about land owned by the petitioner in front of District Police Headquarters. It appears from the record and an earlier order passed by this Court dated 24-11-2008 that the then Hon'ble Chief Minister has issued directions to acquire the entire vacant land in front of the police headquarters of the Police Department. 4. It was the allegation of the petitioner that on 3-8-2008, the respondent No.3 had seized the material from the site of the petitioner where he was intending to construct in accordance with building plan sanctioned by the municipal council. 3 5. It is sought to be contended by learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader that on 5-8-2008, respondent No.3 was required to intervene as there was some dispute between the petitioner and some other party. However, this position is specifically disputed by learned Counsel for the petitioner. 6. Be that as it may, we do not find it necessary to go into that aspect of the matter. 7. It is settled position of law that though a right to property is no more a fundamental right, however, it has been recognized to be a constitutional right as held by the Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Darius Shapur, Chennai, (2005) 7 S.C.C. 627. In that view of the matter, no person can be deprived of his right to property without following due procedure as established by law. We find that the action of respondent No.2 in addressing a communication dated 22-10-2008 to the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council requesting him to cancel building permission granted in favour of the petitioner or if not granted to cancel the same is de hors provisions of law. We find that the respondent No.2 has exceeded its jurisdiction in 4 addressing said communication. 8. We, therefore, allow the petition with directions to the respondents directing them not to interfere with peaceful possession of the petitioner unless otherwise permitted in accordance with due provisions of law. It is further directed that respondents shall not obstruct construction of the petitioner on the site in questions, if it is in accordance with law. It is needless to state that the orders passed by this Court would not, in any way, come in the way of the respondents, if the respondents propose to acquire the land of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of law. Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms. ( N.D.DESHPANDE, J. ) ( B. R. GAVAI, J. ) pnk/wp549108