IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PIL WRIT PETITION NO. 103 OF 2008 Ashok S/o. Bansidhar Agarwal. .. Petitioner Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri S.K. Chaurasia for the Petitioner. Ms Uma Palsuledesai, AGP for Respondent No.1. Ms Anjali Joshi for BMC. -- CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J DATED : 12TH FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C. When this Petition came up for hearing before us on 11th December, 2008, we passed the following order. “Notice. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 accept notice, waive service and pray for time to file reply. Reply may be filed within four weeks from today. Rejoinder within two weeks thereafter. Stand over to 12th February, 2009. 2. Notice to respondent No.3. Liberty to serve Hamdast granted. It is not disputed before us by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that it is a residential zone, reservation of Survey No.1912 is for garden. It is reserved for recreation ground. In view of this, we restrain any construction on that plot till the next date of hearing.” 2. Now reply affidavit on behalf of Respondent No.1 has been filed wherein it has been stated that R.G. reservation is on City Survey No.1911 and 1912. However, there is no reservation on City Survey No.1910 which falls under residential zone. Learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation has submitted that it has not approved any development plan in relation to the property which is the subject matter of the present Petition and no construction have been permitted by it. 3. Resultantly, the writ petition is disposed of in view of the statement made by Respondent No.1. We make it clear that there shall be no construction on the property in question which is the subject matter in the present writ petition. No order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J