1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1701 OF 2009 Lalta Prasad Mahadev Sharma .. Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.A.G.Damle i/b. J.P.Dubey for petitioner Ms.Geeta Shastri, AGP for respondent No.1 Ms.V.S.Gharpure for respondent No.2 Mr.Rajiv Narula i/b.J.Narula & Associates for respondent No.3. CORAM : J.N.PATEL, Actg.C.J. & S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 30th April 2010. P.C.: 1] The order under challenge states that the contravening structure of the petitioner was not there on the date on which the scheme was notified i.e. 6th March 1966. The petitioner himself states that it was in 1979 when he first entered the property. The authority has found as a matter of fact that the petitioner’s predecessor in title one Kanti Dhodhi’s name was not reflected in the sanctioned town planning scheme. Kanti was claiming under unregistered agreement for sale dated 15th May 1982. The mutation entry does not enable the petitioner to claim any rights in the town planning scheme No.2 of Borivali (East) as he was not in possession 2 on the crucial date i.e. When it was notified. 2] Admittedly, the law laid down in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jaswant Mathurasingh and Anr. Vs. Ahemdabad Municipal Corporation & Ors. reported in A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 2130 shows that the relevant date should be the date on which the scheme is notified which in this case is 6th March 1966. 3] In such circumstances, the Assistant Commissioner, R- Central Ward was justified in taking action under section 89 and 90 of the M.R.T.P. Act. The order does not suffer from any error apparent or perversity calling for our interference under the extra ordinary, equitable and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petition dismissed. ( Actg. CHIEF JUSTICE ) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)