1 wp2415.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2415 OF 2011 Afasana Sayyad Ali Quadri ..PETITIONER -VERSUS- Bhusawal Municipal Council ..RESPONDENT ..... Mr. N.L. Jadhav, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. G.V. Wani, Advocate for respondent. ..... (CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) DATED : 24th March, 2011. PER COURT : 1. The matter is placed before this Court pointing out that Municipal Authority i.e. respondent has initiated steps to demolish the construction of petitioner. Advocate Mr. Jadhav for petitioner contends that the petitioner has purchased the suit property on 13.12.2010 and notice action has been taken on 31st January, 2011. Hence by that time the name of petitioner could not be mutated on revenue records and municipal records. He further contends that petitioner being occupant ought to have been served with that notice and given an opportunity of hearing. He states that the petitioner in that event could have demonstrated how the construction is not illegal. 2. Advocate Mr. Wani appearing for respondent-caveator points out that the builder who has sold the property to petitioner is none else but daughter of petitioner. He further points out that sale deed mentions sale of open plot only and without obtaining sanction 2 wp2415.11 from Municipalities the construction has been done. He further points out that there is absolutely no material on record to show that construction as effected is within the four corners of D.C.R. Rules, and therefore, can be regularised or compounded. 3. After hearing the respective Counsel for the parties, I find that the petitioner filed her Civil Suit and sought temporary injunction to protect the construction. That temporary injunction was rejected by Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhusawal on 2nd March, 2011 and thereafter she filed Misc. Civil Appeal no. 27 of 2011. That appeal was dismissed by District Judge-2, Jalgaon on 11th March, 2011. 4. Both the Courts have applied their mind to necessary facts and found no prima facie case in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff. 5. I do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity. Hence, the Petition is rejected. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp2415.11