IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL, CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2210 OF PETITION NO.2210 OF PETITION NO.2210 OF 2006 Mr. Dilip Balkrishna Cowley...Petitioner Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. ......Respondents Mr. A.S. Khandeparkar with Mr. Anilkumar Joshi for the petitioner. Mrs. A.K. Savla for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. D.H. Mehta i/b. Pravin Mehta & Mithi & Co., for respondent Nos.3 to 6. CORAM: F.I. F.I. F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & ANOOP ANOOP ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. V. MOHTA, JJ. V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE: 18TH SEPTEMBER 2006 P.C. . Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that they have sold 50% of Plot No.440 CTS Nos.1197 and 1197/1 in favour of Respondent Nos. 3 to 6. It is their grievance that the Respondent Nos.4 to 6 while submitting their plan for development have shown part of the R.G. area into their plot which is numbered as 440/B for the sake of convenience. 3. Considering that we direct Respondent No..2 to hear the petitioner and respondents 4 to 6 and after examining the sale deed in the event any part of the developed plot NO.440/A shows R.G. area in Plot No.440/B then to withdraw the I.O.D. until such period as the R.G. area is changed and shown in Plot No.440/A. The entire action to be completed within four weeks from today. In the meantime Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 not to proceed with the construction. Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed off. (F.I. (F.I. (F.I. REBELLO, J) REBELLO, J) REBELLO, J) (ANOOP ANOOP ANOOP V. MOHTA,J). V. MOHTA,J). V. MOHTA,J).