1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4779 OF 2009 1) Syed Ali Syed Khaja, R/o- C/o-Laxmi Lottery Center, Aurangabad, 2) Shabbir Ahmed Rafiq Ahmed, R/o- C/o-Mitkar Hotel, Aurangabad, 3) Syed Khaliq Syed Hasan, R/o- C/o- Fancy Readymade and General Stores, Aurangabad, 4) Naeemoddin s/o Hafiz Faqroddin, R/o-Lokseva Cloth Stores, Aurangabad, 5) Sk. Ibrahim s/o Babu, R/o- C/o- Fashion Footwear, Aurangabad. 6) Habibkhan Yousufkhan, R/o- C/o- Milan Tea House, Aurangabad. 7) Tajkhan Kamalkhan, R/o- C/o- Pan Shop, Aurangabad. 8) Rafiq Azim Patel, R/o- C/o- Musafir Tea House, Aurangabad. 9) Abrar Khan Aziz Khan, R/o- C/o- Silver Foot Wear, Aurangabad. 2 10) Mohd. Zakir Mohd. Ismal, R/o- C/o- Apna Readymade, Aurangabad. 11) Sandhya Rawan Kagde, R/o- C/o- Dhananjay Lottery Center, Aurangabad. 12) Rauf Khan Yousuf Khan, R/o- C/o- Readymade, Aurangabad. 13) Rafiuddin Gausuddin, R/o- C/o- Aurangabad, 14) Feroz Khan Yousuf Khan, R/o- C/o- Readymade Clot Store, Aurangabad. 15) Usman Khan Yousufkhan, R/o- C/o- Royal Bags, Aurangabad. 16) Najmuddisa Jahagirdar, R/o- C/o- Readymade, Aurangabad. 17) Syed Aslam Syed Khalid, R/o- C/o- Footwear Shop Aurangabad. ...PETITIONERS. VERSUS 1) Aurangabad Textile Mills, (A Unit of National Textile Corporation) South Maharashtra, Through its General Manager, Kotwalpura, Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist-Aurangabad, 2) The State of Maharashtra, Ministry of PWD, Mantralaya, Bombay, 3 3) The Collector of Aurangabad, Collector Office, Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist-Aurangabad, 4) The Police Commissioner, Aurangabad City, Kotwalpura, Aurangabad, 5) The Municipal Commissioner, Aurangabad Municipal Corporation, Tq. & Dist-Aurangabad, 6) The Executive Engineer, MSEB, Bhadkal Gate, Station Road, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mr.J.R. Shaikh Advocate for Petitioners. Mr.M.N. Navandar Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr.V.S. Dighe, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Mr.S.N. Pagare Advocate for Respondent No.5. Mr.R.L. Kute, Advocate for Intervener/ Applicant in Civil Application No.11504 of 2009. ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4830 OF 2009 1) Mohd. Asad Gulam Dastagir, Central Bus Stand, Aurangabad, 2) Abdul Wahed s/o A. Khan, R/o As above. 3) Sk. Gaffar s/o Sk. Aamer, R/o As above. 4 4) Sk. Usman s/o Sk. Amir, R/o As above. 5) Bhausaheb Karbhari Gaike, R/o As above. 6) Syed Razzaq s/o Syed Hasan, R/o As above. 7) Shamim Jagirdar s/o Syed Fakhruddin, R/o As above. 8) Sk. Yousuf s/o Sk. Miya, R/o As above. 9) Younus Ahemad s/o Nisar Ahemad, R/o As above. 10) Mohd. Aijaz Mohd. Riyaz, R/o As above. 11) Zaheer Ahemad Nisar Ahemad, R/o As above. 12) Syed Younus Syed Habib, R/o As above. 13) Khalidul-Haq s/o Yakinul-Haq, R/o As above. 14) Shiv Singh s/o Harichand Rajput, R/o As above. 15) Feroz Khan Pathan, R/o As above. 16) A. Aahad A. Aziz, R/o As above. ...PETITIONERS. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Bombay, 5 2) The Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad, Through its Commissioner 3) The Collector Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist-Aurangabad, 4) Aurangabad Textile Mills, (A Unit of National Textile Corporation) South Maharashtra, Through its General Manager, Kotwalpura, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mr.J.R. Shaikh Advocate for Petitioners. Mr.V.S. Dighe, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Mr.S.N. Pagare Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr.M.N. Navandar Advocate for Respondent No.4. ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4894 OF 2009 1) Mohammad Atharoddin Mohammad Nasiruddin, R/o- Aasifiya Colony, Plot No.2, Aurangabad, 2) Abdul Aahad Abdul Aziz, R/o-Sabji Mandi, Paithan Gate, Aurangabad, 3) Akram Ali Khan Mumtaz Ali Khan, R/o-Katkat Gate, Babar Colony, Aurangabad, 6 4) Shaikh Mustaque Mohammed Wahajoddin, R/o- House No.4-16-104, C/o-Ruby Guest House, Opp. Central Bus Stand, Kotwalpura, Bhoiwada, Aurangabad. ...PETITIONERS. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary to the Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) Aurangabad Textile Mills, (A Unit of National Textile Corporation Ltd.) (South Maharashtra), Through its General Manager, Kotwalpura, Aurangabad, 3) The District Collector, Collector Office, Aurangabad, 4) The Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad City, Police Head Quarter, Mill Corner, Aurangabad, 5) The Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad, Through its Commissioner, 6) The Wakf Board, Panchakki, Aurangabad, Through its Chief Executive Officer. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mr.M.M. Ghusale Advocate for Petitioners. Mr.M.N. Navandar Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr.V.S. Dighe, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4. Mr.S.N. Pagare Advocate for Respondent No.5. Mr.Zia-Ul-Mustafa Advocate for Respondent No.6. ... 7 CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.U. CHANDWAL, JJ. DATE : 5TH NOVEMBER, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that in the earlier proceedings of Writ Petition No.4314 of 2001 the Petitioners were not made parties. The order passed in Writ Petition No.4314 of 2001 dated 31st March, 2009 is therefore not binding on the present Petitioners. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioners, the issue regarding the ownership of the concerned land is going on between Aurangabad Textile Mills and Wakf Board. It is alleged that Aurangabad Textile Mills is trying to get the possession of the Petitioners land under the garb of encroachment, through the Corporation. The counsel submits that the Stage Government did not sanction the D.P. Road of 35 meters. It is alleged that the Corporation is selectively proceeding against the present Petitioners under the garb of encroachment removal drive. 8 3. Affidavit in reply is filed by Respondent No.1 and Aurangabad Municipal Corporation. Learned counsel for Municipal Corporation on the instructions from the officers who are present in the Court and on the basis of original record, submits that the State Government had earlier reduced the width of the concerned road from 35 meters to 30 meters but thereafter it was again raised to 35 meters and part of revised development plan of Aurangabad Municipal Corporation was sanctioned under Section 31 of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 and in exercise of the said powers, the width of the concerned road was again shown to be of 35 meters. In the submissions of learned counsel for the Corporation, there are encroachments on public road and in view of the development of city which is fastly growing, the encroachments are required to be removed. He further submitted that the action is not only in the interest of the public at large but in compliance of development plan and in the interest of residents of the city. Learned counsel Mr. Pagare further submitted that apart from the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.4314 of 2001 dated 31st March, 2009, 9 Aurangabad Municipal Corporation on their own, is convinced that the encroachments made and located/noticed on the development plan of road of 35 meters are required to be removed. 4. We have also heard the Intervenor in Civil Application No.11504 of 2009. Learned counsel Mr. Kute for the intervenor supported the contentions of learned counsel for the Petitioners in these Petitions. 5. We have perused the record produced before us and considering the submissions advanced, we find that the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation, a public body is entitled to remove encroachments, if any, found on the D.P. road of 35 meters sanctioned by the Government in accordance with the law. 6. By an orders dated 23rd July, 2009 passed in Writ Petition No.4779 of 2009, dated 24th July, 2009 passed in Writ Petition No.4830 of 2009 and dated 28th July, 2009 passed in Writ Petition No.4894 of 2009, this Court has granted order of status quo in respect of dispossession of the Petitioners. Considering the 10 records and submissions advanced before us, we are convinced that the interim relief is required to be vacated. We accordingly vacate the order of status quo passed by this Court in these Writ Petitions on the respective dates referred above. Aurangabad Municipal Corporation is entitled to implement the development plan in accordance with law. The Writ Petitions therefore stand dismissed. 7. In view of the dismissal of Writ Petitions itself, nothing survive for consideration in the pending Civil Applications and therefore all the pending Civil Applications in these Writ Petitions are also dismissed. [K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/NOV09/wp4779.09