- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.3350 OF 2008. PETITION NO.3350 OF 2008. PETITION NO.3350 OF 2008. Shri Valji Devji Patel. ..Petitioner. v/s. Thane Municipal Corporation & Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr.S.V. Dhakephalkar, for the Petitioner. Mr.A.R. Pitale, for Respondent No.1. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : J.N. PATEL & J.N. PATEL & J.N. PATEL & S.J.KATHAWALLA, S.J.KATHAWALLA, S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. JJ. JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 2ND DECEMBER, 2008 : 2ND DECEMBER, 2008 : 2ND DECEMBER, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. It is the petitioners case in the petition that the Thane Town Planning Scheme No.1 (final) came into force on 31st January 1985. It is submitted by the petitioner that after finalisation of the final scheme, the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (the said Act) provides for the enforcement of the said scheme and that the planning authority is under a legal obligation to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the final plot no.491 admeasuring 1979.88 sq.mtrs. to the petitioner under section 88 of the - 2 - said Act. 2. The petitioner had approached this Court as far back as in the year 1999 by filing writ petition no.1550 of 1999 seeking identical reliefs for the same cause of action. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 4th May 2001 whereunder the statement of respondent no.1 was recorded that they would in all probability complete the job of removing the encroachers within a period of one year. However, the Corporation failed to remove the encroachers within a period of one year. The petitioner remained a mere spectator several years thereafter and chose to take out a contempt petition against the respondent only in the year 2006 being Contempt Petition No.166 of 2006, which came to be dismissed. It is also observed in the order passed, whilst dismissing the contempt petition, that if the respondent failed to take necessary steps in terms of the order dated 4th May 2001 within the period prescribed, it was open for the petitioner to approach the Court within one year from 4th May 2002. 3. It is, thus, clear that the petitioner was sleeping over his rights and has not taken any steps in execution, despite - 3 - the order of this Court dated 4th May 2001. The petitioner has now chosen to file this fresh petition after 7 years on identical facts and same cause of action, seeking identical reliefs. The petition is, therefore, barred not only on the principles of res-judicata but the same is also liable to be rejected on the ground of gross delay and latches on the part of the petitioner. 4. We, therefore, dismiss the writ petition with no order as to costs. Needless to add that the dismissal of this writ petition does not prevent/ preclude the petitioner from initiating the execution of the matter. [S.J.KATHAWALLA,J.] [S.J.KATHAWALLA,J.] [S.J.KATHAWALLA,J.] [J.N.PATEL,J.] [J.N.PATEL,J.] [J.N.PATEL,J.]