Wp 1985/11 1 SRS. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1985/2011 M/s Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt.Ltd. Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Respondents Mr.N.H.Seervai,Sr.Adv.i/b Mr.R.N.Kachare for petitioners Mr.S.S.Joshi,AGP for Res.1 to 3,6,to 8 and 12 Mr.D.D.Madon,Sr.Adv.I/b Mr.S.A.Sawant for Res.9 and 10 CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE: 22nd December,2011 P.C. 1 By way of this petition, the petitioner is challenging the report prepared on the basis of demarcation of the land as well as the notice issued for the same. The grievance of the petitioner is that there was no necessity to carry out work of demarcation of land and demarcation of boundaries of the disputed properties. The report is contrary to law and without giving any opportunity to the petitioners of submitting their say. Such demarcation of boundaries has been carried Wp 1985/11 2 out regarding the disputed survey numbers. Various points have been raised in this petition challenging the aforesaid procedure. However, it is not necessary to examine the grievance in detail as during the course of hearing it is agreed by both the sides that since the demarcation of boundaries is carried out on the basis of the application and documents submitted by respondent nos.9 and 10 and since the petitioner was not given any opportunity of submitting his documents, the matter may be remanded back regarding the said issue and a fresh decision may be taken by another officer. Since both the sides including the A.G.P. have agreed for sending the matter back for considering as to whether the demarcation is required to be done at the instance of respondent nos.9 and 10 and whether any ground is made out for such demarcation the matter be sent back to the another officer for taking fresh decision. 2 Considering the said aspect, the matter be sent back to the another officer. It is pointed out by learned A.G.P. that the matter shall be heard by Mr.Nikam, District Superintendent, Land Records, Mumbai Suburb District, 10th Floor, Administrative Building, Behind Chetna College, Bandra, Mumbai. The concerned officer after hearing the petitioner and the concerned respondents may take decision as to Wp 1985/11 3 whether it is necessary to carry out demarcation work of the boundaries of the disputed properties. If he comes to the conclusion that it is not necessary to have fresh demarcation, demarcation carried out earlier as well as the plan and report will be of no consequence. However, if the concerned officer comes to the conclusion that the demarcation of the boundaries is necessary at the instance of respondent nos.9 and 10, the demarcation carried out on 10/8/2011 and noting dated 18/8/2011 alongwith the report and plan shall continue to operate. Accordingly the concerned officer after hearing the petitioner and respondent nos.9 and 10 shall take appropriate decision in connection with aspect as to whether the demarcation of the boundaries is required or not. As pointed out earlier if he comes to the conclusion that it is not necessary to have fresh demarcation, then the earlier proceeding may lapse and it is open for respondent nos.9 and 10 to challenge the said order in accordance with law. However, if he comes to the conclusion that it is necessary to have fresh demarcation, then the earlier report may continue and the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the fresh order as well as the earlier demarcation report . Meaning thereby the rights and contentions of both the sides are kept open and if any party requires to challenge the said decision, it may be challenged before the appropriate Wp 1985/11 4 forum, in accordance with law. In view of the fact that the disputed questions of law and facts are involved in this petition, the parties are permitted to represent the case either personally or they may be represented by the advocates. It is not necessary to examine other averments as well as allegations made by the petitioner in this petition against the concerned officer or the Minister in question. 3 In order to see that the proceedings are not further delayed, the petitioner as well as respondent nos.9 and 10 may appear personally or through their advocates before the concerned officer on 30/12/2011 at 11 a.m.. The concerned officer thereafter may give appropriate date to the parties to remain present with necessary documents. 4 In view of this, it is not obligatory to issue fresh notices of hearing to the petitioner and respondent nos.9 and 10 and the same is made clear to the concerned advocates. 5 The concerned officer may dispose of the proceedings within one month after 30/12/2011 and whatever may be the order, it may be communicated to the parties without any delay. Wp 1985/11 5 6 It is needless to say that the concerned officer may decide the proceedings without being influenced by the earlier order and may take fresh decision on its own merits. 7 The concerned officer to record appropriate reasons and it should be the speaking order. 8 In view of this, Mr.Seervai and Mr.Madon state that nothing further survives in this petition. 9 The petition is disposed of accordingly. Parties to act upon the authenticated copy of this order. ( MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )