ssp 1 WP 7581 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7581 OF 2010 Sharad Ganpat Tulaskar .....Petitioner versus The Collector, Thane and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.S.R.Nargolkar, Addl. G.P., for the respondent Nos.1 to 5. Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate i/by Mr.Jaydeep Deo, for respondent No.6. Mr.A.A.Joshi, for respondent No.7. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATE: 7th FEBRUARY, 2011. P.C. : 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed that respondent Nos.1, 2 and 7 may be directed to take appropriate action in the matter of demolition of the illegal construction raised by respondent No.6 in violation of the N.A. Permission and in violation of the FSI. 2. The petition is opposed by the respondents. Learned Addl. Govt. Pleader has pointed out that there is no violation of N.A. Permission. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed by Mrs.Revati Ashok Gaikar, Sub- Divisional Officer, Bhiwandi, wherein it is averred as under : - 3. The petitioner alleges that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not taken any action against the respondent No.6, though the construction has been allegedly made in violation of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. At the ssp 2 WP 7581 of 2010 outset, it is submitted that the respondent No.6 had applied for N.A.Permission over the disputed piece of land and such permission was granted to him by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhiwandi, by order dated 6th June, 1989, bearing No.B.D./NAP/SR/9/89. The permission was for construction of 22,257.73 sq.mtrs It appears that the construction put up by respondent No.6 is to the extent of 19,146 sq.mtrs and that therefore, there appears to be no violation in respect of the N.A. Permission granted to the respondent No.6. But it is reported by N.A.Tahasildar that the construction is not as per the sanctioned plan. On several occasions, the petitioner had made complaints and these complaints have been investigated. The petition, therefore, devoid of any merits. It is submitted that the Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority is the Special Planning Authority in respect of the disputed piece of land and that, therefore, appropriate action would be taken by the Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority i.e. MMRDA in case it is found that the construction put up by respondent No.6 is not in accordance with the sanctioned Development Plan and/or it violates the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act and/or the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and/or the building permission. It is reported by N.A.Tahasildar that the construction is not as per the sanctioned plan. Therefore, the matter was forwarded to the MMRDA for further investigation and action if necessary. 4. It is further submitted that the petitioner had submitted complaints/representations to the Collector, Thane, calling upon the Collector to take appropriate action against the respondent No.6. The Collector, Thane has forwarded the said complaints/representation to the Sub- Divisional Officer, Bhiwandi, Thane, with a direction to take appropriate action if found necessary. Accordingly, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhiwandi, has investigated into the matter and the findings recorded herein above have been arrived at. The allegations, therefore, that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are not taking any action, are therefore, ill- founded. The petition is therefore, devoid of any merit and ought to be dismissed. ssp 3 WP 7581 of 2010 3. In the said affidavit-in-reply, it is also averred that the Collector, Thane, had sent a copy to the petitioner of the communication, whereby the Collector had directed the Sub -Divisional Officer, Bhiwandi to take appropriate action, if found necessary. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.7 states that notice under Section 53(1) of the M.R.T.P.Act, has already been issued to the respondent No.6 and that they will appropriate action in accordance with law. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 states that they have not violated any permission granted by the competent authorities and the construction has been made as per the sanctioned plan. 5. In our view, since respondent No.7 is looking in the matter, it is not necessary to entertain the above petition. Respondent No.7 may accord appropriate hearing to the concerned parties and may take appropriate decision in accordance with law within a period of three months from today and such decision may be communicated to the petitioner. 6. In view of what has been stated above, the writ petition is disposed of. ( A.A.SAYED, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )