hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICUATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3980 OF 2010 Sudhakar Nathu Chilekar ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3995 OF 2010 Suresh Bapu Vinode ... Petitioner Versus The State of Mahartasthra and Ors. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4074 OF 2010 Dilip Genu Kalate ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4065 OF 2010 Ashok Genu Kalate ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4076 OF 2010 Tukaram Mahatuji Kalate ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5266 OF 2010 Manda Sampat Kalate ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5267 OF 2010 Santosh Manohar Kalate and Anr. ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. A.V. Anturkar i/by Mr. S.S. Salunkhe for Petitioners. Mr. S.R. Nargolkar, Government Pleader for R. No. 1. Mr. S.P. Thorat for R. No. 2. CORAM : D.D. SINHA & MRS MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED : JULY 14, 2010 P. C.: Heard counsel for the Petitioner and Respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this court that in the present petitions, Corporation though issued notices to the owner/occupier under Section 53(1) of the M.R.T.P. Act, however, in the said notices itself it is also mentioned that the owner/occupier shall not have any right to move authorities for regularization. It is contended that the Corporation cannot take away the right of the owner/occupier provided under Section 53(3) of the M.R.T.P. Act. At this stage, the counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 makes a categorical statement that a statement made in clause 4 of the notice under Section 53(1) of the M.R.T.P. Act shall not be given effect and it will be open to the owner/occupier to avail the remedy available under Section 53(3) of the M.R.T.P. Act. The counsel for Respondent Corporation states that if the notice is given to the occupier and not to the owner, in that case, notice will be issued to the owner and if the notice is given to the owner and not to the occupier under Section 53(3), then a fresh notice will be issued to the occupier accordingly. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for Respondent Corporation, it is evident that the statements made in clause 4 of the notice will not be given effect. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to show any indulgence . The Petitions are disposed of accordingly. The limitation for the purpose of section 53(1) would start from today. The Petitioners to approach the authority, if he or she is desirous under section 53(3) within two weeks from today. Parties to maintain status quo for the period of two weeks from today. (MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.) (D.D. SINHA, J.)