(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 2852 OF 2010 Shamkant Kisanrao Rane & others. .. Petitioners. versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. P.S. Shendurnikar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 3. Mr. P.R. Patil, Advocate, for respondent no.2. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE, JJ. DATE : 15TH DECEMBER 2010 COURT'S ORDER (Per R.M. Borde, J.) : 1. The grievance raised in the petition, by the petitioner, (2) does not survive in view of the statement made in the affidavit in reply presented by one Mr. Ravindra s/o. Dattatraya Joshi, presently working as Assistant Director of Town Planning, Jalgaon, on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 3. It is stated in the affidavit in reply thus : " As per the provisions of Rule No. 14.3A (5) of the Development Control Regulations for the T.D.R., the built up area for the purpose of F.S.I. credit in the form of D.R.C. shall be equal to net area of the plot which is mentioned as 90 % of gross area of the plot. Therefore, as per this provision, petitioner is entitled for 90 % T.D.R. of the area of the land that has been acquired by the then Jalgaon Municipal Council. " In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled for 90 % T.D.R. of the area of the land that has been acquired by the then Jalgaon Municipal Council. 2. Mr. P.R. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.2 / Municipal Corporation, states that follow up action would be taken and necessary certificate would be issued within a period of six weeks from today. (3) 3. In this view of the matter, the petition stands disposed of. ( R.M. BORDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp2852