:1: :1: :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.605 OF 2007 Pimpri Chinchwad New Township Development Authority .. Petitioner. Vs. Bachhanram Bansiram Jaiswal and Others .. Respondents. Mr.Vijay Patil for the petitioner. Mr.Akhtar J.Khan for the respondents. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 26TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATED : 26TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATED : 26TH FEBRUARY, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition is directed against the orders of the courts below passed in the proceedings arising from Exhibit-5 application filed by the respondents in regular civil suit No.121 of 2002. The trial Court had allowed the application vide order dated 7.4.2005 and the appellate court in the appeal filed by the petitioners dismissed the appeal vide order dated 4.2.2006. 3. The petitioners have filed the aforementioned regular civil suit for the following reliefs: "(i) That the Defendant, its agents or any other persons claiming from the Defendant may kindly be permanently restrained by order of :2: :2: :2: Injunction from displacing the Plaintiffs from suit property by demolishing the structure of suit property without following the due process of law. (ii) It be declared that the Defendant has no any right to displaced the occupiers of the suit property without following the due process of the law. (iii) Notice dated 28th August, 2002 may kindly be declared as null and void." 4. Mr.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had issued notice dated 28th August, 2002 against the respondents for demolition of the structures and that more than five years have passed since then. He further submits that in fact the petitioners by issuing the said notice had initiated the due process of law. Though the court below had not granted stay to the said notice the council could not and did not proceed further in view of the impugned order. In view thereof, Mr.Patil submits that the petitioners may be allowed to withdraw the said notice and issue fresh notice and give an opportunity of being heard to the respondents. The learned counsel for the respondent fairly stated that the respondents have no objection for allowing them to withdraw the notice dated 28.8.2002 and issue fresh notice. He further submits that if a fresh notice is issued the respondent shall contest the same by filing reply and seeking hearing before the concerned authority. In view of the :3: :3: :3: submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, the following order shall meet the ends of justice: (a) The notice dated 28th August, 2002 is set aside as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to issue fresh notice under section 53(1) of the MRTP Act and thereby follow the due process of law seeking demolition of the respondents’ structures. (b) The petitioners shall give sufficient time to the respondents to file their reply to contest the notice. It is open for the respondents to file the reply to the notice so also to seek personal hearing, if they so desire. The petitioners and the respondents shall follow the procedure as contemplated by section 53 of the MRTP Act. (c) The trial Court shall pass formal order disposing of regular civil suit no.121 of 2002 in pursuance of this order. . The writ petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)