ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 6088 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 6088 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 6088 OF 2008 ALONG ALONG ALONG WITH WITH WITH WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.6216 OF 2008 PETITION NO.6216 OF 2008 PETITION NO.6216 OF 2008 Highland Holiday Homes Pvt.Ltd. ...Petitioner Vs. Lonavala Municipal Council, Lonavala & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar, Sr.advocate a/w Mr.S.S.Aradhye for the Petitioner. Mr.R.S.Apte a/w Mr.A.A.Garge for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.R.R.Sharma for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. CORAM CORAM CORAM : R.V.MORE, J. : R.V.MORE, J. : R.V.MORE, J. DATED DATED DATED : 24th September, 2008. : 24th September, 2008. : 24th September, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. The Respondent No.1 issued notice under Section 53(1) of the M.R.T.P.Act, 1966 to the Petitioner. The Petitioner challenged the said notice by filing the suit in the Trial Court. The Petitioner also filed an Application Exhibit 5 for injunction and stay to the notice, which was dismissed by the Trial Court and ( 2 ) Appellate Court confirmed this order. 3. The lower Appellate Court dismissed the Petitioner’s Miscellaneous Civil Appeal mainly on the ground that the Petitioner has alternate remedy of filing an Appeal against the notice. It is not disputed by Mr.Dhakephalkar, the learned Sr.Counsel that under Sub-Section 3 of Section 53 of M.R.T.P.Act, the Petitioner can apply for permission under Section 44 for retention on the land of any building or any works or for the continuance of any use of the land to which the notice relates. He also expressed his readiness and willingness to apply to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 53 (3) of the M.R.T.P.Act. 4. Mr.Garge, the learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the Petitioner applied for regularization of part of unauthorized construction and his application is already rejected by an order dated 10-11/09/2008. He produced copy of the order rejecting the Petitioner’s application for regularization. However, the perusal of the order dated 10-11/09/2008 reveals that the same is passed without application of mind. ( 3 ) 5. For the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I am of the considered view that the Petitions can be disposed by giving liberty to the Petitioner to apply to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 53 (3) read with Section 44 of the M.R.T.P. Act and further giving directions to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to dispose of the Petitioner’s Application as expeditiously as possible and on its own merits. In view of the above I pass the following order. O R D E R R D E R R D E R 1. The Petitioner is at liberty to apply to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 53 (3) read with Section 44 of the M.R.T.P. Act for regularization. The Petitioner as well as Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are entitled to appear through architect. 2. In the event, the Petitioner making the above said application under Section 53 (3) read with Section 44 of the M.R.T.P.Act, within a period of 4 weeks from today, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible ( 4 ) within a period of four weeks thereafter. 3. Needless to mention that the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall dispose of the said Application on its own merits and without being influenced by the order impugned in the Petition. 4. During the pendency and final consideration of Petitioner’s Application, parties will maintain status-quo. 5. Both the Petitions are disposed of accordingly. ( R. V. MORE, J.) R. V. MORE, J.) R. V. MORE, J.)