skc 1 WP-6641-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6641 OF 2011 Rahul Ramesh Samdadia ..Petitioner versus The Commissioner, Malegaon Municipal Corporation, Malegaon & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. Sandesh D. Patil for Petitioner. Mr. R. B. Raghuvanshi and Ms. Rutuja Ambekar for Respondent No. 1. Mrs. M. P. Thakur – Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent No. 2. CORAM : D. D. SINHA AND MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED : 09 September 2011. P.C. : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no. 2. 2. The writ petition is directed against the notice dated 27th July 2011 issued by the respondent no.1 under section 53 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. It is contended that as per the procedure stipulated in section 53 (1) notice period should be one month and as per section 53(3) a person aggrieved by such notice, within the said period is entitled to apply for permission under section 44 for retention on the land of any buildings or works or for the continuance of any use of the land, to skc 2 WP-6641-11 which notice relates. It is further submitted that as per the scheme of sub section (3) of section 53, pending final determination or withdrawal of the application, the mere notice issued under sub section (1) of section 53 shall not affect the retention of buildings, works or continuance of such use. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that pursuant to the notice dated 27th July 2011 the petitioner submitted application under section 44 of the MRTP Act for grant of permission, which is pending before the authorities for consideration and decision according to law. The counsel for the petitioner therefore prayed that direction be given to the respondent no.1 to decide the said application finally within a stipulated period. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that if the application/s submitted by the petitioner for grant of permission, if not decided earlier, and is/are pending for consideration and decision, same shall be considered in accordance with law and procedure applicable in this regard on its own merits by taking decision thereon within a period of eight weeks from today. 5. On the backdrop of the above referred facts, it appears that the respondent no. 1 issued notice to the petitioner under section 53 of the MRTP Act, being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner submitted application for skc 3 WP-6641-11 grant of permission under section 44 of the MRTP Act. However, the respondent no. 1 till this date has not taken any decision thereon. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has made a categorical statement that the application/s submitted by the petitioner for grant of permission purported to be under section 44 of the MRTP Act shall be considered in accordance with law and procedure applicable in this regard by taking decision thereon within a stipulated period of eight weeks from today. No specific direction in this regard as such is necessary and we hope and trust that the respondent no.1 will decide the application/s of the petitioner submitted to the respondent no.1 for permission accordingly. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. 6. The counsel for the petitioner undertakes that the petitioner will appear before the respondent no.1 at 11 O’clock on 15th September 2011 and is entitled to submit documentary evidence in order to substantiate his claim. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)