1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6925 OF 2009 Savitribai Sridhar Mhaske, Age-43 years, Occu-Agriculture, R/o.Plot No.3, Jai Bhavani Housing Society, Garkheda Parisar, Dist. Aurangabad PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Industries, Energy and Labour Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032. 2. Inspector General of Registration and Collector of Stamps, M.S.Pune, Ground floor, opposite to Vidhan Bhavan, (Council Hall) New Administration Building, Pune – 411001. 3. Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Aurangabad Division, Central Administrative Building, 2nd floor, (South East Cabin) Collector Office Compound, Aurangabad 4. Regional Officer, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Aurangabad RESPONDENTS Ms.Vasudhara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.V.H.Dighe, learned AGP for respondent no.1 to 3 Mr.S.S.Dande, learned counsel for respondent no.4 2 (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 14/10/2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per A.V.Potdar, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to issue directions to respondent no.2 and 3 to register the sale deed of the petitioner in respect of land situated in the Village Balapur, Taluka and District Aurangabad. 3, The facts which gave rise to file the present writ petition can be summarized that the petitioner claimed to be the owner of the agricultural land Gat No.75 situated in village Balapur Taluka and District Aurangabad. It is alleged that as the petitioner was in dire need of financial assistance, the petitioner decided to sale her landed property. Accordingly, the petitioner had received the earnest money from the intending purchaser. When she inquired with the Sub Registrar, Aurangabad about the registration of the sale transaction in the office of Sub-Registrar, Aurangabad, the Sub-Registrar Aurangabad refused to register the sale deed as the land of the 3 petitioner was notified under The M.I.D.C. Act. It appears that the petitioner was informed that her land was notified under the M.I.D.C. Act by the Regional Office, M.I.D.C. i.e. respondent no.4 and further directed to respondent no.2 and 3 vide communication dated 04/01/2007 not to register the sale transaction of the lands notified under the M.I.D.C. Act, as those lands are required by the M.I.D.C. for Special Economic Zone. It is alleged that even though the land was notified under the M.I.D.C. Act, no acquisition proceeding was started nor notified u/s. 32(1) of The M.I.D.C. Act by the Government. 4. Today when the writ petition came up for hearing before us, our attention is drawn towards the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.3581/2009 and other companion writ petitions to which we both of us are parties. In the said judgment, we have hold that the communication dated 14/11/2007, 18/12/2007 and 02/01/2008 by which directions were issued by respondent no.2 and 3 to the concerned Sub-Registrar, not to register the sale transactions of the lands which lands are notified under the M.I.D.C. Act is bad in law and we have quashed and set aside all those communications. Today learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the M.I.D.C. Shri.Dande fairly conceded that the controversies settled by the judgment of the Division Bench and the controversy in this writ petition are squarely covered by the judgment rendered by us in Writ Petition No.3581/2009 dated 14/08/2009. In the premise, the present writ petition to be disposed 4 of in view of the said decision. 5. In the result, the writ petition succeed. Rule is thus made absolute in terms of prayer clause A to the petition and the writ petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/OCT 2009/wp6925-09