{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3941 OF 2009 Dattatraya Arjun Rewadkar R/o Gandheli, Tq & Dist-Aurangabad PETITIONER VERSUS 1. State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Industries, Energy and Labour Department Mantralaya Mumbai 2. Inspector General of Registration and Collector of Stamps, Maharashtra State, Pune Ground Floor, Opposite Vidhan Bhavan Council Hall, New Administration Building Pune 3. Deputy Inspector General of Registration Aurangabad Division, Aurangbad Central Administrative Building 2nd Floor (South East Cabin) Collector Office Compound, Aurangabad 4. Regional Officer, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Aurangabad RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3944 OF 2009 Dattatraya Arjunrao Rewadkar R/o Gandheli, Tq & Dist-Aurangabad PETITIONER {2} VERSUS 1. State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Industries, Energy and Labour Department Mantralaya Mumbai 2. Inspector General of Registration and Collector of Stamps, Maharashtra State, Pune Ground Floor, Opposite Vidhan Bhavan Council Hall, New Administration Building Pune 3. Deputy Inspector General of Registration Aurangabad Division, Aurangbad Central Administrative Building 2nd Floor (South East Cabin) Collector Office Compound, Aurangabad 4. Regional Officer, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Aurangabad RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4193 OF 2009 Abhijit Shridhar Mahske R/o Gandheli, Tq & Dist-Aurangabad PETITIONER VERSUS 1. State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Industries, Energy and Labour Department Mantralaya Mumbai {3} 2. Inspector General of Registration and Collector of Stamps, Maharashtra State, Pune Ground Floor, Opposite Vidhan Bhavan Council Hall, New Administration Building Pune 3. Deputy Inspector General of Registration Aurangabad Division, Aurangbad Central Administrative Building 2nd Floor (South East Cabin) Collector Office Compound, Aurangabad 4. Regional Officer, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Aurangabad RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4194 OF 2009 1. Sangita Vishnu Aadani 2. Bhagwan Gangadhar Aadani 3. Murlidhar Bhagwan Aadani 4. Vandana Murlidhar Aadani All R/o T.V. Center, Aurangabad All 1 to 4 through their GPA Savitribai Shridhar Mhaske 5. Savitribai Shridhar Mahske R/o Plot No.3, Jay Bhavani Housing Society, Garkheda, Aurangabad PETITIONERS {4} VERSUS 1. State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Industries, Energy and Labour Department Mantralaya Mumbai 2. Inspector General of Registration and Collector of Stamps, Maharashtra State, Pune Ground Floor, Opposite Vidhan Bhavan Council Hall, New Administration Building Pune 3. Deputy Inspector General of Registration Aurangabad Division, Aurangbad Central Administrative Building 2nd Floor (South East Cabin) Collector Office Compound, Aurangabad 4. Regional Officer, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Aurangabad RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.S.S.Thombre, Advocate for petitioners Mr.N.N.Jadhav, AGP for respondents No.1 to 3 Mr.S.S.Dande, Advocate for respondent No.4. ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] Reserved on : 11/08/2009 Pronounced on : 14/08/2009 {5} JUDGMENT (PER A.V.POTDAR, J.) : 1. As all these writ petitions raise identical facts and common question of law is involved in these petitions, these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties these petitions are heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. The petitioners, by these petitions, under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, pray that by issuing writ of certiorari quash and set aside impugned letters dated 14.11.2007 issued by Regional Officer, MIDC, Aurangbad, dated 18.12.2007 issued by Inspector General of Registration and Controller, Maharashtra State Pune and dated 02.01.2008 issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Aurangabad refusing registration of the lands notified for SEZ vide notification dated 04.01.2007. 4. The petitioners are owners of lands situated at villages Balapur and Gandheli within Aurangabad Taluka. According to the petitioners, the petitioners are in dire need of money and hence they decided to sale these lands and accordingly they received earnest money from the intending purchasers. 5. According to the petitioners, when they inquired with {6} the sub registrar in respect of their proposed registration, the sub registrar refused to register the sale deeds as their lands are situated in the area notified under the provisions of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961. It is alleged that the petitioners were also informed that the lands have been notified under the MIDC Act and the Regional Officer, MIDC, has informed the Inspector General of Registration, Pune not to register sale deeds of the lands notified under the MIDC Act and accordingly, the Inspector General of Registration directed all his subordinates not to register the transactions in respect of the lands notified under the said notification. It is also contended that powers are delegated to the concerned Deputy Collectors, Sub Divisional Officers and Special Land Acquisition Officers u/s 32, 36 and 38 of the MIDC Act. It is alleged that though the lands are notified as industrial area under the MIDC Act yet no acquisition proceedings are started or notification u/s 32 (1) has been issued by the Government. Therefore, it is averred that neither the MIDC nor the Regional Officer have any authority to stop registration of the sale deeds until the lands are acquired and handed over to the development authority under the provisions of the MIDC Act. Hence, the petitioners have preferred these petitions. 6. In response to notices respondents No.1 to 4 have appeared. Respondents No.1 to 3 filed affidavit in reply contending that the area, in which the lands of the petitioners are situated, is declared as “Industrial Area” u/s 2 (g) of the MIDC Act and {7} notification has been issued u/s 1 (3) of the said Act. It is further contended that pursuant to the said notification dated 04.01.2007, the MIDC has informed the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Aurangabad not to register any transfer of lands in the notified area. It is also alleged that under Rule 44 of the Maharashtra Registration Rules of 1961, the intending transactions are prohibited by any existing Act, Central or State, without requisite permission or no objection certificate from the competent authority under the said Act. In view of these provisions under the Maharashtra Registration Rules, it is incumbent on the petitioners to obtain no objection certificates from the competent authority. According to them as no such NOC was obtained from the competent authority, the registration authority has validly refused registration of the proposed transactions of the petitioners and prayed for dismissal of the petitions. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. During the course of submissions the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners took us through the provisions of the MIDC Act. Reliance is also placed on the judgment dated 11.07.2008 in writ petition No.3800/2008. It is brought to our notice that Chapter VI of the MIDC Act deals with acquisition and disposal of lands and Section 32 (1) of the said Act deals with compulsory acquisition. On bare reading of this section it is evident that if at any time, in the opinion of the State Government, {8} any land is required for the purpose of development by the Corporation, then the State Government may acquire such lands by publishing in the official gazette a notice specifying particulars for which the land is to be acquired. Sub Section (2) of section 32 contemplates that before publishing such notice the State Government shall, by another notice under sub section (1) of section 32, call upon objections from the owners of the lands to be acquired for the said purpose. Admittedly, no steps are taken by respondents for acquisition as required u/s 32 (1) and (3) of the said Act. In absence of any steps taken under these provisions of the said Act issuance of direction prohibiting transfer of lands in the notified area itself is without jurisdiction. In the premise, the directions issued vide impugned letters are without any jurisdiction and hence liable to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, we quash and set aside the orders / communications dated 14.11.2007, 18.12.2007 and 02.01.2008. 9. In the result, the petitions succeed. Rule is thus made absolute in terms of prayer clause “A”. Writ petitions disposed of with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp3941-09