- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5323/2010 Dr.Hemantsingh Mohansing Rajput, age 47 yrs., occu.Medical Practitioner, r/o D-93/8, 11th Scheme, Shivajinagar, CIDCO, Aurangabad. ...Petitioner.. Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra, (Through Department of Urban Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032). 2] Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad, through its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad. 3] The City & Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., through its Administrator, Town Centre, CIDCO, Aurangabad. ...Respondents... ..... Shri D.P. Palodkar, Advocate for petitioner. Shri S.K. Kadam, AGP for respondent no.1. Shri S.N. Pagare, Advocate for respondent no.2. Shri A.S. Bajaj, Advocate for respondent no.3. ..... - 2 - CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, CJ. & NARESH H. PATIL, J. DATE: 29.11.2010 PER COURT : 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] The petitioner, who has put up construction in Shivajinagar area, Aurangabad, which is admittedly within the limits of Aurangabad Municipal Corporation, contends that at the relevant time when the construction was put up, CIDCO was not granting any building permission and that the area was at the relevant time not included within the limits of Aurangabad Municipal Corporation. Hence, according to the petitioner, the people, having land in Shivajinagar area, had no other option, but to put up constructions without obtaining any permission of any authority. The residents in Shivajinagar have, therefore, been requesting the State Government to give necessary directions to CIDCO / Aurangabad Municipal Corporation to regularize such constructions in the 11th Scheme, Shivajinagar, CIDCO, Aurangabad, as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 as well as the Maharashtra Gunthewari Development (Regularisation, Upgradation and Control) Act, 2001. 3] It appears that the petitioner had made representation to the then Chief Minister on 21.8.2009 and the Member of the Legislative Assembly from the area - 3 - had also made recommendation in respect of the petitioner’s claim. 4] It also appears from the communication dated 10.9.2009 of the State Government in the Urban Development Department, the Municipal Commissioner of Aurangabad Municipal Corporation that the matter is under consideration of the State Government. 5] Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, without entering into merits of the controversy, we dispose of this petition with a direction that if the petitioner makes representation to the State Government on the subject matter of this writ petition within a period of three weeks from today, the State Government in the Urban Development Department shall consider and take appropriate decision after considering the view point of all the authorities as well as the petitioner and other similarly situated persons, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within four months from the date of receipt of such representation. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) CHIEF JUSTICE ndk/c2911103