1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 2231 of 2011 [Shaikh Habib Husainbhai Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra & others] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. M.K. Kulkarni, Adv., for the petitioner. M. A. Parihar, AGP for respondent no.1. Mr. A.A. Naik, Adv., for respondent nos. 2 and 3. Mr. S.V. Manohar, Senior Adv., with Mr. Gaikwad, Adv., for respondent no.4. ---- CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATE : 23rd September, 2011. 1. Heard. 2. Challenge is to sale-deeds executed on 1 st October, 2003 and 5 th January, 2006 by respondent nos. 2 and 3 in favour of respondent no.4. 3. We have heard learned Adv. Mr. Kulkarni on the question of diligence, delay and laches. 2 4. The petitioner, an ex-employee of Empress Mills, who claims to have submitted an offer of Rs. 36 crores for same land in the year 2002, is not in a position to satisfactorily explain why he could not take steps immediately. Mr. Kulkarni states that land was allotted in open competitive process to M/s. Rai Udyog for a sum of Rs. 45 crores, and that concern had deposited the amount of Rs. 75,00,000-00. Lateron, as balance amount could not be deposited, the transaction could not go through. He contends that thereafter there was a bidder at Sr. No.2 and then bid of present petitioner was at Sr. No.3. As sale-deeds have been executed by respondent nos. 2 and 3 in favour of respondent respondent no.4 by private negotiations and it was not known to public, petitioner could not get necessary knowledge. It is contended that when respondent no.4 issued advertisement for allotment of residential and commercial structures, he got the knowledge. 5. Mr. Manohar, learned Sr. Adv., for respondent no.4, is seriously disputing this position. He has invited attention to orders passed on 14 th December, 2010 in a similar challenge raised vide Writ Petition No. 2324 of 2010. He points out that petitioner therein was also employee of Empress Mills. Advertisement by respondent no.4 is dated 31 st December, 2009. 6. It is apparent that some disputed 3 questions of fact arise in the matter. Hence we are not inclined to make observations on merits of the controversy. Sale-Deeds are executed by an instrumentality of State Govt., in favour of a Statutory Authority and Board constituted under the Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Act, 1976. The sale-deeds are duly registered. The public invitation by Respondent no.4 for flats and blocks is on 31 st December, 2009. There are no interim orders operating. 7. In this situation, in the light of orders dated 14 th December, 2010, we permit the petitioner to approach appropriate Forum where disputed questions can be resolved, if said forum is still available in law. Needless to mention that all rival contentions are kept open. 8. Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Judge Judge |Hedau|