(-1-) MGN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1368 OF 2008 Nativity of Our Lord’s Church ...Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtara & Ors. .Respondents Mr. S.C. Naidu i/b. C.R. Naidu & Co., for the Petitioner Mr. R.J. Mane, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. S.S. Pakale with Ms. S.M. Modale, for Respondent No.4. Mr. Rajesh Gehani, for the Respondent Nos.6 & 7 Mr. Kalpesh Parekh i/b. Pragna Thakkaer & Co., for respondent No.8. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & A.A.KUMBHAKONI,JJ. A.A.KUMBHAKONI,JJ. A.A.KUMBHAKONI,JJ. DATED: 8th October, 2008 DATED: 8th October, 2008 DATED: 8th October, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . At the hearing of this petition on behalf of the petitioner learned Counsel restricts this petition only to prayer clauses (a), and (c). He further prays that in respect of other prayer clauses and challenge to D.C. Regulations he may be allowed to file an independent petition. 2. Considering the above the petition in respect of other reliefs except prayers (a) and (c), the petition stands withdrawn. The petitioner is at liberty to file an independent petition for the reliefs set out therein and any other relief (-2-) including the challenge to D.C.Regulations. 3. We may only mention that at the interim stage prayer (d) had been granted. That prayer, therefore, exhaustes itself. 4. Rule. Heard forthwith. The limited relief which the petitioner now seeks in this petition is to the action of the Nayab Tahasildar to the entries made in the property card to City Survey No./F.P. No.169 of village Akurli, South Goregaon, Mumbai Suburban District. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that they have purchased the property under a sale which was conducted by Respondent No.8 and the sale certificate in their favour was issued on May 18, 2007. From the facts on record it appears that the workers of Respondent No.5 had filed applications under the provisions of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act and they had obtained orders against respondent No.5. In respect of these orders they had obtained certificate for recovery of the said dues as arrears of land revenue. 6. Apparently the Nayab Tahasildar based on the said certificate has made the entries in the property card without issuing notice to the (-3-) petitioner herein. 7. Considering these facts in our opinion this petition can be disposed of. Admittedly the petitioners would be the absolute owners of the property pursuant to the sale in their favour by respondent No.1 pursuant to the certificate issued on May 18,2007. The certificate issued in favour of the workmen by the Court can be against the assets of the respondent No.5. Admittedly as of 13th August, 2007 the respondent No.5 ceased to be owner and ownership of the property vested in petitioner herein. 8. Therefore, even if the Nayab Tahsildar wanted to make any entry for the property card if he was entitled in law he could not have done so without first giving notice to the petitioner herein. The petitioner had applied to the Nayab Tahsildar to include their name in the records on 17th September, 2007. 9. In the light of that this petition will have to be allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (c). . Petition allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (c). We, however, make it clear that the (-4-) Nayab Tahasildar, if still he is entitled to can after proper notice to the petitioner and other interested persons take whatever action he is entitled to in law. issuing notice Considering the disposal of Writ Petition No.1368 of 2008 learned Counsel seeks leave to withdraw this petition with liberty to take such further steps or to file fresh petition which he may be entitled to in law. Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. (A.A.KUMBHAKONI, J.) (A.A.KUMBHAKONI, J.) (A.A.KUMBHAKONI, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)