1 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 614 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 974 OF 1999 ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1113 OF 2000 1. Anil Gulabdas Shah .. Applicant/ Petitioner Vs. 1. State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents Mr. Anil Shah, applicant party-in-person present. Mr. J.S. Saluja, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 3. Mr. Arif Bookwala, Senior Counsel with Mr. B.A. Phadnis i/by G.D. Utangale and Co. for respondent no.2. Mr. M.P.S. Rao, Senior Counsel with Mr. Sandip Parekh, Mr. Ashok Paranjpe, Ms. Leena Desai i/by Naik Naik and Co. for respondent no.4. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. May 03, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard Shri Shah, applicant, party-in-person as well as Mr. 2 Rao, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no.4. Mr. Bookwala, the learned Senior Counsel appears for respondent no.2 and Mr. Saluja, AGP appears for respondent nos.1 and 3. 2. The applicant in this Notice of Motion prays for the following relief:- “(a) Pending the hearing and final diposal of the petitions the Respnodents No.1, 2, 3, 4, their officers and servants and agents be restrained by an interim orders and injunction and observe status quo to the Letter of Intent dated 1/12/1998 being Exhibit “B” to the Writ Petition or otherwise.” Respondent No. 4 has filed affidavit-in-reply dated 3/12/2009 and opposed the Motion. However, on 14/12/2009 this court has directed that there should be ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a) in so far as respondent nos.1 to 3 are concerned and restricted to the land which the petitioners have claimed i.e. CTS Nos.449 and 429. By the further order dated 8/1/2010, the ad-interim relief granted on 14/12/2009 was continued. 3 3. It appears respondent no.4 filed SLP (Civil) Nos. 2748 – 2749 of 2010 against the ad-interim orders passed by this court on 14/12/2009 and 8/1/2010 in this Notice of Motion. On 5/2/2010, the SLPs came to be disposed off by the Supreme Court with a request to this High Court to decide the Notice of Motion as early as possible. At the same time, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the impugned orders which are interlocutory in nature. 4. We have already directed that both the petitions are required to be heard and decided at the earliest possible and the petitioner, party-in- person, has been given time upto 10th June 2010 to place on record the amended petition memos with all the annexures so that petitions are taken up for final hearing in the week commencing from 14/6/2010. 5. So far as the land in CTS No. 449 is concerned, it is with the Court Receiver as of now. The other land which the petitioners claim and which is a subject matter of these petitions is CTS No. 429. The applicant prays for the ad-interim relief to be continued in respect of this second plot of land i.e. CTS No. 429 and he further submits that despite the ad-interim orders passed by this court, respondent no.4 continues to proceed with the 4 construction. The applicant further alleges that construction of a commercial building is coming up on part of the land in CTS No. 429. 6. Mr. Rao, the learned Senior Counsel, on instructions, states that as a part of the entire scheme, construction of a residential complex is going on and the portion of CTS No. 429 it has already come upto two slabs. Mr. Rao states that the ad-interim order passed on 14/12/2009 was not continued beyond 8/2/2010. 7. The applicant claims his ownership rights along with other family members over CTS Nos. 449 and 429 and as per him the total area admeasures about 2800 sq.mtrs. He further alleges that the Government of Maharashtra through respondent nos.1 and 3 has acquired the said land illegally and, therefore, the said acquisition is a subject matter of challenge in these petitions. 8. We are, therefore, satisfied that the ad-interim order passed by this court on 14/12/2009 is required to be continued in respect of the land in CTS No. 429. 5 9. Hence, without prejudice to the contentions of the parties, we direct that respondent no.4 shall not continue with the on going construction on CTS No. 429 until further orders and this order shall be binding on all the respondents. We also make it clear that in case the petitions are not heard and decided for any reasons attributable to the petitioner by 31st July, 2010, the respondent no.4 is at liberty to apply for vacating this interim protection in respect of CTS No. 429. 10. Notice of Motion is disposed in terms of the above directions. (MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)