1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4851/2005 PETITIONER : Sau. Roopa w/o Sanjay Mukte, aged about 34 years, Occ. - household r/o Ward No.116, Munshi Mandir Marg, Near Gavarabai Math, Mahal, Nagpur, Through its power of attorney holder, Shri Sanjay Govind Mukte, aged about 43 years, Occ – private work, r/o Ward No.116, Munshi Mandir Marg, Near Gavarabai Math, Mahal, Nagpur. ...VERSUS... RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra, Department of Urban Land and Town Planning Mantralaya, Mumbai, through its Secretary. 2. The Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur through its Commissioner. 3. Smt. Shashiprabha wd/o Late Tejsighrao Ahirrao, aged about, 56 years, Occ – household, through her power of attorney holder, Shri Abhimanyu s/o Bhaktamal Chawala, aged about 41 years, Occ- Busines, r/o Kalpana Apartment, Dayanand Nagar, Jaripatka, Nagapur. 4. Shree Sai Builders and Developers, through its proprietor Shri Abhimanyu s/o Bhaktamal Chawala, aged about 41 years, Occ – Business, r/o Kalpana Apartment, Dayanand Nagar, Jaripatka, Nagpur. 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Shri V.G. Deshmukh, Adv. for petitioners] [Shri J.B. Jaiswal, AGP for respdt. No.1] [Shri M.G. Bhangde, Adv. for respdt. Nos.3 & 4] CORAM:- A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED :- 20.08.2009 1. In the present writ petition there is a challenge to the order, dated 2.6.2005, Annexure-L, passed by respondent No.1 in Appeal under Section 47 of the Maharashtra Regional And Town Planning Act, 1966. 2. Learned Counsel for petitioner pointed out my attention to the application for amendment of petition i.e. Civil Application No.1037/2009 and written notes of argument in support of the said application as well as writ petition. According to him, in fact, there are two written notes of arguments filed in support of the application as well as writ petition, accompanied by one more pursis. Learned Counsel for petitioner argued that the amendment application deserves to be allowed in order that the petitioner is allowed to bring all events on record and the frauds committed on the petitioner while obtaining the compromise decree etc.. He then argued that there are several questions involved in the present writ petition. 3 3. I have perused the impugned order, dated 2.6.2005 and I find that the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings in which final order was passed on 2.6.2005. There is no application or prayer to permit the petitioner to challenge the said order in the present writ petition because the petitioner was not a party in those proceedings before the Government. Therefore, in my opinion, the petitioner is not entitled to file the present writ petition without complying with the requirements of law. At this stage, my attention is invited to order, dated 12.7.2005, made by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.604/2005 and in particular clause No.1 thereof. I have perused the said order and I find that the Division Bench granted liberty to the petitioner to put to challenge the order dated, 2.6.2005, but that does not mean that the Division Bench dispensed with the requirement of applying for leave to file this petition as the petitioner was not party to those proceedings. The Division Bench does not say that without permission of this Court or leave of this Court while putting to challenge the said order, dated 2.6.2005 straightway this petition could be filed. That apart, even considering the validity of the said order, dated 2.6.2005, I find that the said order is merely a remand order asking the Corporation to reconsider the issue afresh. The Division Bench of this Court while making the said order, dated 12.7.2005 has in clear terms in clause No.2 granted liberty to the petitioner to intervene before the Corporation in those proceedings which would be taken up pursuant to remand order, dated 4 2.6.2005. Even in the instant case, I find that the petitioner is entitled to enter appearance in the proceedings after remand before the Corporation and raise as number of objections as the petitioner desires and take part in those proceedings. There is no reason why remand order should be interfered with at the instance of the petitioner, who was not even a party before the Government, which made the said order, dated 2.6.2005. Hence, I do not propose to interfere with the impugned order, dated 2.6.2005 for the above reasons. In so far as civil application for amendment is concerned, the proposed amendment is irrelevant and has no connection whatsoever with the proceedings in the matter of remand order, dated 2.6.2005. As a matter of fact, the petitioner ought to have taken expert legal advice to file appropriate proceedings in the appropriate Courts if the compromise decree was obtained by fraud or as the case may be. That apart, lengthy civil applications are filed without even bothering to verify what connection the averment in the application has with the original subject matter of the writ petition. This is totally a directionless journey which is being made by the petitioner without understanding the correct procedure and filing of correct proceedings before the appropriate Courts. 4. For these reasons, therefore, I do not entertain the present petition. I reserve liberty in favour of the petitioner to approach the Nagpur Municipal Corporation and object to the proceedings with whatever objections the petitioner wants to in the proceedings after remand. 5 In the affidavit of the Corporation, in paragraph Nos.6 and 7, it has been clearly mentioned that the Corporation after remand has not decided the proceedings due to pendency of the present writ petition. That is a lame excuse on the part of the Corporation since this Court has never stayed the proceedings after remand. Be that as it may, the petitioner should now appear before the Corporation in terms of the liberty granted by the Division Bench of this Court and raise all kinds of objections as she wants to. 5. Writ Petition is disposed of. Civil Application No.1037/2009 for amendment is rejected. No order as to costs. JUDGE ssw