Writ Petition No.9417/07 mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN ITS CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9417 OF 2007 Tukaram Sopan Kale & Ors. ..Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.9425 OF 2007 Chandrakant Sopan Borate & Ors. ..Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.9433 OF 2007 Ganpat Dhondiba Borate (Decd.) by LRS- Govind Ganpat Borate & Ors. ..Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.9439 OF 2007 Tukaram Maruti Borate (Decd.) by LRS – Krishnakant Tukaram Borate & Ors. ..Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents 1 Writ Petition No.9417/07 Shri Vineet B. Naik for the Petitioners Ms P.S.Cardoza AGP for Respondent State Shri R.M.Pethe for Respondent No.3 Coram:P.B.MAJMUDAR AND R.M. SAVANT, JJ. 14th July, 2010 P.C. 1. Rule, with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The Petitioners in the above Petitions are land owners / developers who have challenged the orders passed in the Revision all dated 31-10-2007, by the Revisional Authority, by which order, the Revisional Authority has set aside the 8(4) order passed in each of the Petitions, and in view of the facts that the Petitioners have carried out the constructions on the lands now declared as surplus, the Petitioners have been directed to pay the penalty, in default of which the Petitioners have been threatened that action would be taken against the Petitioners for recovery of the same, the Petitioners are also threatened with criminal prosecution. 3. The Revisional order, which is subject matter of the each of the above Petitions, is challenged on the twin grounds namely on the ground of 2 Writ Petition No.9417/07 inordinate delay in initiating the said proceedings as also on the ground that the Revisional Authority could not have issued the directions in the nature of paying penalty as directed by the impugned order. 4. In so far as challenge to the Revisional Order on aforesaid grounds of inordinate delay and the levy of penalty is concerned, the said issue is no more res-integra and is concluded by a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 6th May 2010, (to which one of us P B Majmudar, J was a party) in Writ Petition No.153 of 2008 in the matter of Anil Nemichand Bafna and ors v/s. State of Maharashtra and anr. By the said judgment, the revisional order in the said case was quashed on the ground of there being inordinate delay in initiating the said revisional proceedings as also on the ground that the revisional authority could not have issued directions of levying penalty at the rate mentioned in the ready reckoner for regularising the construction on the surplus vacant land. 5. In the above Petitions common interim order came to be passed on 7-4-2008. In the said interim order, the statement made on behalf of the Petitioners / developers to the effect that they are willing to hand over 15% of the constructed plot to the Pune Municipal Corporation free of costs in terms of the policy of the State, was recorded. On such handing over, the Pune Municipal 3 Writ Petition No.9417/07 Corporation was directed to issue occupation certificate for the constructed area to the Petitioners / developers. 6. Today the Learned Counsel for the Pune Municipal Corporation Shri Pethe, on written instructions pointed out to us that the Petitioners in all the above Petitions have totally handed over 237 flats covering the 15% of the constructed area of the plot. The parties i.e. Pune Municipal Corporation and the Petitioners / developers have executed a Transfer Deed dated 17-12-2008 to the said effect. The Learned Counsel Mr. Pethe further states that the occupation certificate has accordingly been granted to the Petitioners / developers, in so far as, the said aspect is concerned, it appears that the Petitioners have fulfilled their obligation qua the State Government. 7. Since there is delay in initiating the revisional proceedings, for the view that the Division Bench of this Court has taken in the Judgment (Supra), the above Petitions are required to be allowed and are accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). Rule in all the above Petitions is accordingly made absolute in the above terms with parties to bear their own costs. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.) 4