: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5429 OF 1998 WRIT PETITION NO.5429 OF 1998 WRIT PETITION NO.5429 OF 1998 Manohar J. Chhablani .. Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.S.P.Kanuga with Mr.J.S.Chandnani for the petitioner. Mr.S.R.Nargolkar, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1,2 and 5. Mr.S.M.Kamble for respondent Nos.3 and 4. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & R.Y. GANOO, JJ. R.Y. GANOO, JJ. R.Y. GANOO, JJ. DATE : 26th June, 2008. DATE : 26th June, 2008. DATE : 26th June, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The petitioner after getting Sanad for the land which is dated 28.5.1993, executed by the M.O. & Asstt. Administrator, Ulhasnagar Township, Camp No.5, had applied to the Municipal Council, Ulhasnagar for permission to build. According to the petitioner, within a period of 60 days from the receipt of the application, plan of the petitioner was not rejected. Therefore, he had deemed : 2 : permission to construct in accordance with the building plan that he had submitted. 2. It is common ground that the petitioner sofar has not started the construction. It appears that by communication dated 28.11.1994, the Municipal Council rejected the building plan of the petitioner for only one reason, i.e. "Title is not clear as per the office record. Yet C.D. verification is not received from S.D.O." 3. According to the petitioner, he has Sanad executed in his favour by the M.O. & Asstt. Administrator, copy of which has been given to the Municipal Council and, therefore, the Municipal Council cannot say that the title of the petitioner is not clear. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the Municipal Council, the Sanad executed in favour of the petitioner has been wrongly issued and that the Municipal Council has moved the Authority for cancellation of the Sanad. 4. It is clear from the record and the rival submissions that there is, in fact, Sanad issued in favour of the petitioner of the land and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to have his building plan : 3 : sanctioned. However, if according to the Municipal Council, the Sanad was wrongly issued in favour of the petitioner, the Council should have made enquiry and obtained appropriate orders in that regard. The Municipal Council, in our opinion, was not justified in keeping the matter hanging indefinitely. 5. In our opinion, therefore, following order would meet the ends of justice :- a) In case, the Municipal Council secure order from any appropriate authority declaring that the Sanad granted in favour of the petitioner of the land in question to be illegal or invalid, the petitioner shall not be entitled to raise construction in accordance with the building plan submitted by the petitioner. b) However, in case, the Municipal Council does not succeed in obtaining such an order within a period of six months from today, the Municipal Council shall issue an order sanctioning building plan submitted by the petitioner in the year 1994. c) It is clarified that in case, the : 4 : Municipal Council is required to clear the building plan of the petitioner pursuant to the order, the Municipal Council shall be at liberty to verify whether the building plan submitted by the petitioner is in accordance with the building regulations that may be in existence today. 6. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)