1 wp8518.11.lot IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No. 8518/2011 Baban Bhausaheb Dongre ... Petitioner ...versus... Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation. ... Respondent Writ Petition No. 8519/2011 Baban Bhausaheb Dongre ... Petitioner ...versus... Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation. ... Respondent Writ Petition No. 8520/2011 Baban Bhausaheb Dongre ... Petitioner ...versus... Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation. ... Respondent Writ Petition No. 8521/2011 Hemant Namdev Lande ... Petitioner ...versus... Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation. ... Respondent 2 wp8518.11.lot Writ Petition No. 8522/2011 Hemant Namdev Lande ... Petitioner ...versus... Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation. ... Respondent Writ Petition No. 8523/2011 Hemant N. Lande ... Petitioner ...versus... Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation. ... Respondent Writ Petition No. 8524/2011 Hemant N. Lande ... Petitioner ...versus... Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation. ... Respondent Writ Petition No. 8525/2011 Hemant N. Lande ... Petitioner ...versus... Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation. ... Respondent 3 wp8518.11.lot Writ Petition No. 8531/2011 Hemant N. Lande ... Petitioner ...versus... Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation. ... Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. P. R. Thorat i/b Mr. Ravi Kadam, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. Deepak More, Advocate for respondent. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : S. A. BOBDE AND Smt. V. K. TAHILRAMANI , JJ DATE : NOVEMBER 14, 2011. P.C. : 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The contention of the petitioners in all these petitions is that notice under Section 53 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) is illegal because the petitioners had obtained permission before making the construction from the Gram Panchayat, as it then existed. At that time the MRTP Act has not been enacted and, therefore, they are not liable to comply with the provisions of the MRTP Act. Also, the construction need not be in conformity with the provisions 4 wp8518.11.lot of the MRTP Act. However, it appears from the notice that this contention was not raised before the authority. 3. Mr. More, learned counsel for the respondent-Municipal Corporation, states that having regard to mistake in the survey numbers mentioned in the earlier notices, subsequent notices have been issued to all the petitioners under Section 53 of the MRTP Act. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioners can very well raise all these contentions in response to the subsequent notices. Further, in addition the petitioners may also make an application for retention of the structure under Sub Section (3) of Section 53 of the MRTP Act read with rules 6 and 10 of the Maharashtra Development Plans Rules, 1970. 4. In the circumstances, it is not necessary for us to entertain this petition. The petitioners shall file appropriate reply and make necessary applications under Section 53 of the MRTP Act within a period of two weeks from today showing cause against the notice and for retention. The petitioners are also entitled to raise all such grounds, as are available, including the ground that the constructions are not governed by the provisions of the MRTP Act since they were made prior to its enactment. The respondent-Corporation shall consider the reply and the 5 wp8518.11.lot applications of the petitioners, in accordance with law, on all points and communicate its decision to the petitioners. The Corporation shall dispose of the applications before it within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of reply and the applications. There shall be status quo as on today regarding existing constructions till the applications are disposed of. Rule made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (Smt. V. K. TAHILRAMANI J.) kahale