1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 5195/2010 (Tekchand Rupchand Waswani .vs. The City of Nagpur Corporation and ors. ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : JUNE 23, 2011 Heard Advocate Shri R.L. Khapre for petitioner, Advocate Shri S.M. Puranik for respondents no.1 to 3 , learned AGP Shri A.S. Fulzele for respondents no.4 to 6. Respondent no.7 is then Assistant Director of Town Planning who sanctioned building plan of the petitioner and then revoked that sanction. Looking to the orders which we propose to pass, service upon him is dispensed with. Though he is served with the notice, he has chosen not to appear. Grievance of Advocate Shri Khapre is in sanctioned lay-out, piece of land situated on eastern side of plot no.52 and behind plot nos. 47 to 51 was shown as open land because of the high tension power line passing over it. However, in 1984 building plan submitted by the society developing that lay-out itself was sanctioned and construction accordingly was completed by the present petitioner. He further states 2 that in due course of time that high tension power line was already removed. In 2010 petitioner wanted to have his Super Market on that plot and, therefore, submitted a new plan. Respondent no.7 gave sanction to that plan and hence petitioner demolished the old construction. Before new construction could be undertaken, respondent no.7 revoked the sanction. In this background, he has invited attention to communication dated 3.3.2008 sent by the respondent-Corporation to State Government seeking minor modification under Section 37 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966. His contention is in development plan entire land covered by lay-out is shown for residential purpose and hence there is no question of approaching the Government in the matter. The internal change within the boundary of lay-out can be looked into by Nagpur Municipal Corporation. He further attempts to demonstrate that open space is available elsewhere in the existing lay-out. That open space on which the construction was permitted in 1984 and was standing till 2010 has been regularized as plot no.51A. According to learned AGP and also Advocate Shri Puranik, this is not a correct position. They contend that there is nothing like plot no.51A in the lay-out and the construction sought is on open space. They also denied availability of open space elsewhere in the lay- out. They point out that the alleged open space is meant for play ground/open space. The communication forwarded by the Corporation to the State Government is dated 3.3.2008 3 and it is still pending. The communication is, therefore, prior to demolition of structure by petitioner. In this situation, without going into the disputed question of facts, we find it proper to direct respondent no.4 to look into the communication dated 3.3.2008 and take appropriate decision thereon after giving petitioner necessary opportunity of hearing. The petitioner shall appear before respondent no.4 for such hearing on 15.7.2011 and respondent no.4 shall pass appropriate orders thereafter as early as possible and in any case by 31.8.2011. With this direction, we dispose of the petition with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE halwai