Wpl 1622.11 1 SRS. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION(L) NO.1622/2011 M/s Amir Co-op.Hsg.Society Ltd. Petitioner Vs. M.C.G.M.and Ors. Respondents Mr.P.P.Surve for petitioner Ms.Purandare for Res.1 to 3 Mr.P.G.Karande for Res.4 CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE: 12th December,2011 P.C. 1 The grievance of the petitioner is that while giving sanction to the plan submitted by respondent no.4, area of the petitioner is also covered under the same and according to the petitioner, therefore, respondent no.4 has no right to carry out any construction. It is stated that atleast plan could not have been sanctioned for the area of which the petitioner is in possession. Wpl 1622.11 2 2 In our view the aspects what actual area the petitioner is possessing and whether as per the sanctioned plan the area of the petitioner is covered or not are required to be decided on the basis of factual aspect. Therefore,the petitioner is directed to make representation to the Dy Engineer (B & P), Eastern Suburbs-1 in this behalf pointing out his grievance and the Commissioner may take decision in accordance with law after hearing the parties on the points whether the are of the petitioner is submerged and whether it is included in the plan sanctioned by the Corporation? 3 Appropriate decision may be taken after hearing the parties. It is clarified that whatever development might have been carried out is subject to the decision of the representation. 4 Petition is disposed of . ( MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )