1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 972 OF 2010 Ravindra Champalal Khinvasara, Age : 44 Years, Occu. : Business, R/o N-3, CIDCO, Aurangabad. .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra, Ministry of Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32, Through its Secretary. .. Respondent Shri P. B. Shirsath, Advocate for the Petitioner. Smt. A. V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State. Shri V. D. Sapkal, Amicus Curaie. CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 12TH AUGUST, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P. V. HARDAS, J. ) : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2 2. We have heard Shri Shirsath, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Gondhalekar, learned Assistant Government Pleader on behalf of the respondent/State and Shri Sapkal, amicus curaie appointed by us in Suo Moto Writ Petition No. 5730 of 2007. 3. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the communication issued by the respondent, dated 30th July, 2008 keeping the consideration of the proposal in respect of de-reservation of the land of the petitioner from undeveloped zone to residential zone in abeyance pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court. 4. In order to appreciate the facts involved in the present case a reference can usefully be made to the order of the Division Bench of this Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition No. 5730 of 2007. It appears that the Division Bench of this Court was concerned on account of certain news items which appeared in the local news paper relating to the de-reservation of open plots in the city which had been reserved for play ground, garden and other public utility purposes. The Division Bench, therefore took suo moto cognizance and by its order dated 04.10.2007 directed to place all such petitions before the appropriate Court and also 3 appointed a amicus curaie in the matter. Subsequently, when this matter came up before the Division Bench of this Court, the Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 09.10.2007 issued notice to the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation and Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai making it returnable on 23.10.2007. The Division Bench by an ad-interim order further directed the authorities thereby restraining them from taking any further decision or action on the proposed de- reservation move and the State Government in the concerned department was restrained from taking decision on the proposal if any received from the Corporation. Certain other directions also came to be issued of which presently, we are not concerned. 5. In the interim order, the Division Bench had focused itself upon the growing trend of seeking de-reservation of open plots in the city which had been reserved for schools, play grounds, garden and other public utility purposes. The learned Judges of the Division Bench adverted to the fact that the public places like garden, play grounds operate as lungs of the city and the reservation of such places require consideration in the light of rapid growth and development of the township. The aforesaid ad-interim order passed by this Court came to be confirmed by this Court by issuing Rule on 30.01.2009. Since then the interim 4 relief has been operating in this case. 6. Undisputedly, the Division Bench of this Court while taking cognizance by way of suo moto writ petition was concerned with the de-reservation of the open plots which had been reserved for play ground, garden and other places of public utility. In the present case, the proposal was mooted to the Government for passing appropriate orders in respect of de- reservation of the private land of the petitioner which fall in undeveloped zone and the de-reservation was sought in respect of the said land for the purposes of "Residential". 7. Learned amicus curaie appointed by us subsequently has very fairly stated before us that the merit of the interim order of this Court would not come in the way of the Government in deciding the proposal of the petitioner, for the reason that the reservation was not in respect of any open land or any land reserved for school, play ground, garden or other public utility places, etc. Having perused the order of the Division Bench granting an ad-interim relief, according to us the order of the Division Bench was restricted to the de-reservation of open plots which were reserved for garden, play grounds, school and other public utility places. The aforesaid order, therefore, according to 5 us would not come in the way of the respondent in deciding the proposal of the petitioner, in accordance with law. 8. In that light of the matter, therefore, we allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned order in this petition, dated 30th July, 2008 and direct the respondent to decide the proposal submitted in respect of the petitioner's land, if pending, in accordance with law, within six months from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. 9. Rule is thus made absolute on the above said terms with no order as to costs. 10. Before parting with the judgment, we must express our appreciation for the efforts taken by the learned amicus curaie appointed by us in Suo Moto Writ Petition No. 5730 of 2007 and the assistance rendered by the learned amicus curaie in the decision of the present matter. We accordingly quantify the fees payable to the learned amicus curaie at Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five thousands only) [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ P. V. HARDAS, J.] bsb/Aug.10