1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2035 OF 2008 Lawrence Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. ..... Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .....Respondents Mr.Harshad Bhadbhade a/w Swati Sawant, for the Petitioner Nos.1 & 2. Ms.Leena Sawant, for petitioner No.3(a) to (f). Smt.Geeta Shastri, A.G.P., for respondents. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2008. P.C. 1. The grievance of the petitioners in this petition is in connection with the issuance of fresh Property Register card in respect of property bearing C.T.S.No.4950 B/2 and 4950 B/3 situated at Village Kole Kalyan, Taluka Andheri, Mumbai Suburban District. It seems that regarding original earlier property card, a criminal case was instituted against the landlord and builder. However, the Trial Court acquitted the accused, against which an appeal is preferred at the instance of State Government. 2 The learned Advocate for the petitioners however, submitted that no such appeal is filed against the original landlord and the present petitioners are the successor in interest as they have purchased the property later on. The grievance of the petitioner is that a new Register Property card with exact & actual measurements may be issued in their favour. It is submitted that the petitioners have purchased the property by way of registered sale deed. 2. The learned A.G.P., on the other hand, submitted that the respondent No.2 is required to carry out fresh survey and measurement of the property in question. Since criminal appeal is pending in connection with the property in question and unless no objection certificate is given by the Anti Corruption Bureau, it may not be possible to accept the request of the petitioners. 3. The learned Advocate for the petitioners vehemently submitted that no such NOC is required, as the trial is already over and the Appellate Court has clarified this aspect by its order dated 18-03-2001 passed in W.P. No.2218 of 1989. The learned Advocate for the petitioner further submitted that he has already made representation to the Collector in this behalf on 03-04-2007. The learned A.G.P., has also submitted that fresh survey & measurement may be required to be carried out in connection 3 with the property in question. However, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the department has already carried out fresh survey and measurement is already taken regarding the property. 4. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, the petitioners are permitted to make representation to the Collector along with detailed report annexing the order of this Court referred to above, as well as the measurements if any, carried out by the department. If any representation is made, the Collector, Mumbai Suburban District, is directed to take appropriate decision in accordance with law as to whether any fresh property card can be issued to the petitioners. The Collector shall take decision after hearing the petitioners and going through the documents on record and ultimately take appropriate decision in connection with issuing fresh property card to the petitioners. Such decision may be taken preferably within a period of two months from the receipt of the application/representation of the petitioners and whatever decision may be communicated to the petitioners without delay. It is for the Collector to issue notice to Anti Corruption Bureau if so required, in order to know the stand of the Anti Corruption Bureau in this regard. It is for the 4 Collector to consider as to whether any fresh property card is required to be issued in view of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2218 of 1989. In case, the petitioners have any grievance, it sill be open to the petitioners to approach this Court again. Subject to what is stated hereinabove, the petition is disposed of. ( A.A.SAYED, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )