{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2931 OF 2009 1. Manohar Dashrath Londhe R/o Near Balaji High School Chikalthana Taluka & Dist-Aurangabad 2. Sanjay Kishanrao Dhotre R/o Chikalthana, Tq & Dist-Aurangabad 3. Navnath Rangnath Kawade R/o Mali Galli, Chikalthana Tq & Dist-Aurangabad 4. Ravindra Trimbak Londhe R/o Mali Galli, Chikalthana Tq & Dist-Aurangabad 5. Ravi Sahebrao Kawade R/o Chikalthana, Tq & Dist-Aurangabad 6. Bugan Shekuji Jadhav R/o Mahadeo Galli, Chikalthana Taluka & Dist-Aurangabad PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Collector, Aurangabad 3. The Municipal Commissioner Aurangabad Municipal Corporation Aurangabad RESPONDENTS WITH {2} WRIT PETITION 2973 OF 2009 1. Bhaginath Shamrao Navpute R/o Mali Galli, Chikalthana Tq & Dist-Aurangabad 2. Mohd.Riayaz Mohd.Issaq R/o Chikalthana, Tq & Dist-Aurangabad 3. Santosh Sominath Navpute R/o Chikalthana, Tq & Dist-Aurangabad 4. Machindra Pandurang Karvande R/o Chikalthana, Tq & Dist-Aurangabad 5. Walmik Asaram Navpute R/o Chikalthana, Tq & Dist-Aurangabad 6. Babasehab Manohar Dahihande R/o Chikalthana, Tq & Dist-Aurangabad 7. Subhash Pandurang Dahihande R/o Chikalthana, Tq & Dist-Aurangabad 8. Dattu Baburao Wagh R/o Chikalthana, Tq & Dist-Aurangabad 9. Vijayprakash Baburao Gaikwad R/o Chikalthana, Tq & Dist-Aurangabad 10. Sominath Ranuba Kawade R/o Chikalthana, Tq & Dist-Aurangabad 11. Ramnath Bhagwati Dube R/o Chikalthana, Tq & Dist-Aurangabad 12. Shaikh Hussain Shaikh Miya R/o Chikalthana, Tq & Dist-Aurangabad 13. Gokul Rambhau Somwanshi R/o Chikalthana, Tq & Dist-Aurangabad 14. Hiraman Ramchandra Rithe R/o Chikalthana, Tq & Dist-Aurangabad {3} 15. Devidas Baburao Wanarase R/o Chikalthana, Tq & Dist-Aurangabad 16. Dnyaneshwar Govindrao Navpute R/o Chikalthana, Tq & Dist-Aurangabad 17. Sayyed Zishan Ahmed Abedi R/o Nehru Bhavan, Kabadi Pura, Aurangabad PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Collector, Aurangabad 3. The Municipal Commissioner Aurangabad Municipal Corporation Aurangabad RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.P.G.Deshmukh h/f Mr.H.A.Joshi, Advocate for petitioners Mr.N.B.Khandare, Government Pleader for respondents No.1 & 2 Mr.S.N.Pagare, Advocate for respondent No.3 ....... WITH WRIT PETITION 2913 OF 2009 1. Kishor Gangabisan Agrawal R/o V/B 31, Vishnunagar, Aurangabad 2. Prashant Shamrao Apstambh R/o B/H 1/72, Thakre Nagar N-2, CIDCO, Aurangabad 3. Arjun Chandrakant Wagh R/o Chikalthana, Aurangabad 4. Prakash Keshvrao Armal {4} R/o Plot No.17, Opp-SBOA School CIDCO, Aurangabad 5. Ramnath Kishan Shrotre R/o Chikalthana, Aurangabad 6. Pushpa Baburao Wankhede R/o Wankhede Nagar, Aurangabad 7. Kantabai Deorao Davande R/o H.No.N-2, J-25/6, Mukund Wadi, CIDCO, Aurangabad 8. Sunita Santoshrao Andure R/o L-4, 12/15, Shriram Nagar CIDCO, Aurangabad 9. Naresh Deepchand Sainani R/o Plot No.G-25, Sindhi Colony, Aurangabad 10. Sanjeev Jagananth Gudekar R/o Chikalthana, Aurangabad PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Department of Revenue Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Collector, Aurangabad 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Aurangabad 4. The Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad, Through Municipal Commissioner RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.D.P.Palodkar, Advocate for petitioners Mr.N.B.Khandare, Government Pleader for respondents No.1 to 3 Mr.S.N.Pagare, advocate for respondent No.3 ....... {5} WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4135 OF 2009 Anil S/o Ratanlal Agarwal R/o Aurangabad Partner of M/s A.S.Association, B-11, First Floor, Cannaught Place CIDCO, Aurangabad PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Collector, Aurangabad 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Aurangabad 4. The Tahasildar, Aurangabad 5. The Aurangabad Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad, Through its Commissioner RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.M.K.Goyanka, Advocate for petitioner Mr.N.B.Khandare, Government Pleader for respondents No.1 to 4 Mr.S.N.Pagare, Advocate for respondent No.5 ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE: 22nd September 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) : 1. Since all these petitions raise identical / similar question, all these petitions are being decided 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. {6} 3. Petitioners, who claim to be the owners and purchasers of shops in Commercial Complex known as “Dwarkesh Complex”, constructed in Chikalthana, have filed present petitions praying therein to restrain the respondents from demolition of their shops and thereby evict the petitioners. The petitioners have annexed copies of sale deeds as well as copies of Non Agriculture permission, granted by the competent authority as well as commencement certificate of construction, issued in favour of the builder, by the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation. According to petitioners, the construction has been carried out strictly in accordance with the building permission granted by the competent authority. 4. On notice of these petitions being issued to the respondents, the respondents have filed affidavit in reply. In affidavit in reply, the respondents have stated that the N.A. Permission was granted for construction of a residential complex and not for commercial complex and, therefore, there is change of user. Other grounds are also urged. 5. Undisputedly, the petitioners, who have purchased the shops in the shopping complex known as “Dwarkesh Complex” have not been issued with any notice, nor have they been heard in respect of the alleged demolition of the aforesaid premises. According to us, in the peculiar circumstances, it was incumbent on the authorities to have issued notices to the petitioners and to have heard the petitioners / persons who have purchased the shops in the Dwarkesh Complex, before resorting to demolition of the said complex. In the light of that, therefore, we allow these petitions and direct the authorities not to effect the demolition of the said shopping complex, without issuing individual {7} notices to the petitioners as well as to the persons, who may have purchased shops in the Dwarkesh Shopping Complex, Chikalthana. The authorities are directed to issue notices giving opportunity to the concerned of filing their replies / producing documents and thereafter to decide the rival claims, in accordance with law. Till the aforesaid exercise is carried out by the respondents, the interim order of directing the parties to maintain status quo, shall continue. The respondents to communicate their decision to the petitioners and the order of status quo to operate for a further period of 3 weeks, in the event the order is passed against the interest of the petitioners, to enable them to file appropriate proceedings, to challenge the order, if adverse to their interest. 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp2931-09