1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTON WRIT PETITION NO.2563 OF 2009 Anwar Hajee Alimohamed Agboatwala & Ors. .. Petitioners V/s State of Maharashtra & Anr.. .. Respondents Mr.Gaurav Joshi i/by M/s.Thakore Jariwala & Associates for the Petitioners. Mr.I.M.Calcuttawala, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE: 12th August, 2010. P.C. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwtith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By order dated 24th December, 1996 passed in Writ Petition No.2417 of 1996 this Court directed the State Government to derequisition the premises and restore the possession to the petitioner after satisfying itself about the title of the petitioner over the property. The petitioner submitted documents of title but the order has not been passed in favour of the petitioner. Petitioner therefore filed the present petition. 3. On 9th February, 2010, following order was passed in this petition:- “The learned counsel for the Respondents states that steps are being taken for de-requisitioning of the premises. Stand over to 19th March, 2010. Interim order to continue till then.” 4. On 22nd June, 2010 following order was passed in this petition:- “On behalf of the Respondents, learned counsel states that the 2 premises would be de-requisitioned within 15 days in favour of the petitioners....”. 5. Thereafter order dated 6th July, 2010 was made by the Controller of Accommodation, Government of Maharashtra. By that order, property was de-requisitioned, but following rider was added:- “subject to the submission of the documents regarding the trust/wakaf (registration certificate, trust/wakaf deed, list of the present trustees/mutavalis and respective changes in the property card after death of Smt.Fatimabai hajiali Mohemed Agboatwala) within the period of one month from the issuance of this order. After the submission of the above mentioned documents, the handing over of the possession of the premises will be done as per the procedure laid down for in the Act and to the person found to fit in this regards. If the petitioners fails to do as directed above, this order stands cancelled after the expiration of the period of one month, without further notice.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no justification whatsoever for adding the above quoted portion to the order because before 22nd June, 2010 admittedly all the documents regarding the title of the petitioners to the property were submitted before the authority and it is only after verification of those documents that the statement which is recorded in the order dated 22nd June, 2010 was made. Learned counsel for the Respondents is not in a position to give any explanation as to why in the face of the statement recorded in the order dated 22nd June, 2010 the authority was justified in adding the above quoted portion to the order. In our opinion, as the documents were admittedly submitted before 22nd June, 2010 obviously the statement that is recorded in the order dated 22nd June, 2010 was made after verifying the documents, and therefore, there was no justification for adding the above quoted portion. 3 7. In view of this, in our opinion, following order would meet the ends of justice:- Above quoted portion from the order dated 6th July, 2010 is set aside and it is substituted by the following:- “Formal possession of the premises shall be handed over to the petitioner within two weeks from today”. 8. Rule is made absolute accordingly, with no order as to costs. (R.G.KETKAR, J.) (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)