{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3581 OF 2009 1. Gopinath Gaunaji Zhauk R/o Balapur, Tq & Dist-Aurangabad 2. Murlidhar Gaunaji Zhauk R/o Balapur, Tq & Dist-Aurangabad 3. Sominath Kaduba Jadhav R/o Plot No.37, Nakshtrawadi, Paithan Road, Aurangabad PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Industries, Energy and Labour Department Mantralaya Mumbai 2. Inspector General of Registration and Collector of Stamps, Maharashtra State, Pune Ground Floor, Opposite Vidhan Bhavan Council Hall, New Administration Building Pune 3. Deputy Inspector General of Registration Aurangabad Division, Aurangbad Central Administrative Building 2nd Floor (South East Cabin) Collector Office Compound, Aurangabad 4. Regional Officer, {2} Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Aurangabad RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3603 OF 2009 1. Shaikh Taru Shaikh Hasan R/o Deolali, Tq & Dist-Aurangabad 2. Amjadkhan Bismillakha Pathan R/o Satara, Tq & Dist-Aurangabad PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Industries, Energy and Labour Department Mantralaya Mumbai 2. Inspector General of Registration and Collector of Stamps, Maharashtra State, Pune Ground Floor, Opposite Vidhan Bhavan Council Hall, New Administration Building Pune 3. Deputy Inspector General of Registration Aurangabad Division, Aurangbad Central Administrative Building 2nd Floor (South East Cabin) Collector Office Compound, Aurangabad 4. Regional Officer, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Aurangabad RESPONDENTS {3} ....... Mrs.Vasundhara Rao, Advocate for petitioners Mr.N.N.Jadhav, AGP for respondents No.1 to 3 Mr.S.S.Dande, Advocate for respondent No.4. ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] Reserved on : 11/08/2009 Pronounced on : 14/08/2009 JUDGMENT (PER A.V.POTDAR, J.) : 1. As both the writ petitions raise identical facts and common question of law is involved in both the petitions, these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties these petitions are heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. The petitioners, by both these petitions, under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, pray for quashing and setting aside impugned letters dated 14.11.2007 issued by Regional Officer, MIDC, Aurangbad, dated 18.12.2007 issued by Inspector General of Registration and Controller, Maharashtra State Pune and dated 02.01.2008 issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Aurangabad refusing registration of the lands notified for SEZ vide {4} notification dated 04.01.2007. The petitioners have also prayed for directions to respondents No.2 and 3 to register the sale deeds of the petitioners. 4. The petitioners are owners of lands situated at villages Balapur, Deolali and Gandheli within Aurangabad Taluka. According to the petitioners, the petitioners are in dire need of money and hence they decided to sale these lands and accordingly they received earnest money from the intending purchasers. 5. It is contended that on their inquiry with the Sub Registrar, Aurangabad in respect of registration of the said transaction, the sub registrar refused to register the sale deeds as the lands have been notified under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961. It is further alleged that it is informed to the petitioners that as the lands have been notified under the said Act, the Regional Officer, MIDC, has informed the Inspector General of Registration not to register sale deeds of the said lands. Accordingly, directions were given by the Inspector General of Registration to all the subordinates not to register the deed of conveyance or transaction in respect of lands notified under the said Act. According to the petitioners, the State of Maharashtra has declared the lands in these villages as “industrial area” on 04.01.2007 and powers are delegated to the concerned deputy Collectors, Sub Divisional Officers and Special Land Acquisition Officers u/s 32, 36 and 38 of the MIDC Act. It is alleged that {5} though the lands are notified as industrial area under the MIDC Act yet no acquisition proceedings are started or notification u/s 32 (1) has been issued by the Government. Therefore, it is averred that neither the MIDC nor the Regional Officer have any authority to stop registration of the sale deeds until the lands are acquired and handed over to the development authority under the provisions of the MIDC Act. Hence, the petitioners have preferred these petitions. 6. In response to notices respondents No.1 to 4 have appeared. Respondents No.1 to 3 filed affidavit in reply contending that the area, in which the lands of the petitioners are situated, is declared as “Industrial Area” u/s 2 (g) of the MIDC Act and notification has been issued u/s 1 (3) of the said Act. It is further contended that pursuant to the said notification dated 04.01.2007, the MIDC has informed the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Aurangabad not to register any transfer of lands in the notified area. It is also contended that the petitioners have alternate remedy u/s 72 of the Registration Act, if they are aggrieved by refusal of registration. In the premise, it is contended that the letter issued from the office of the sub registrar is within the powers and as an alternate remedy is available, the writ petitions are not maintainable and hence requested for dismissal of the same. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. {6} 8. During the course of submissions the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners took us through the provisions of the MIDC Act. Reliance is also placed on the judgment dated 11.07.2008 in writ petition No.3800/2008. It is brought to our notice that Chapter VI of the MIDC Act deals with acquisition and disposal of lands and Section 32 (1) of the said Act deals with compulsory acquisition. On bare reading of this section it is evident that if at any time, in the opinion of the State Government, any land is required for the purpose of development by the Corporation, then the State Government may acquire such lands by publishing in the official gazette a notice specifying particulars for which the land is to be acquired. Sub Section (2) of section 32 contemplates that before publishing such notice the State Government shall, by another notice under sub section (1) of section 32, call upon objections from the owners of the lands to be acquired for the said purpose. On reading of entire affidavit in reply, we do not find anywhere that the respondents have initiated acquisition proceedings u/s 32 (1), as contemplated under Chapter VI of the MIDC Act, 1961. Till the proceedings u/s 32 (1) of the said Act are not initiated, the acquiring body or the State Government have no right over the lands, though the said lands, according to them, are declared as industrial area. If this is the legal position, then the respondents have no right to stop the sale transactions in the said notified industrial area and to issue directions to the subordinate officers to refuse registration of transactions of the {7} lands in that area. Thus, the orders passed by the respondents are without any authority. In the premise, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, we quash and set aside the orders / communications dated 14.11.2007, 18.12.2007 and 02.01.2008. We direct the respondents No.2 and 3 to register the sale deeds of the petitioners as prayed for. 9. In the result, the petitions succeed. Rule is thus made absolute in terms of prayer clauses “A” and “B”. Writ petitions disposed of with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp3581-09