ssp 1 WP 7585 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7585 of 2010 Mohan Pandurang Kalate .....Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7586 OF 2010 Ashok Genu Kalate .....Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7587 OF 2010 Dilip Genubhau Kalate .....Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.A.V.Anturkar i/by Mr.S.S.Salunkhe, for the petitioners. Ms.S.S.Bhende, AGP, for respondent No.1. Mr.S.P.Thorat, for respondent No.2. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATE: 25st JANUARY, 2011. P.C. : 1. The grievance of the petitioners is that the constructions in question were already carried out before the development plan came into existence and such type of constructions should not have been treated as illegal constructions and therefore, notice issued under Section 53(1) of M.R.T.P.Act, is bad in law. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not ssp 2 WP 7585 of 2010 pressed into service argument regarding vires of Section 53(1) of the Act. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation submitted that the powers are properly exercised and the Corporation is entitled to invoke Section 53(1) of the Act, in the present case. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the petitioners may approach to the Corporation under Section 53(3) of the Act, wherein all the contentions of the petitioners, including whether the constructions in question is authorized or not, shall be considered in accordance with law and while considering the same, the respondent-Corporation shall also decide the applicability of Section 53(1) of the Act. 3. In view of the said statement, the petitioners are now permitted to make appropriate application/representation as contemplated under Section 53(3) of the Act within a period of two weeks from today. It will be open to the petitioners to take all available points, including the point that the constructions in question is not unauthorized. If any representation is made, the respondent-Corporation after hearing the petitioners, may take appropriate decision in accordance with law and may also consider as to whether provisions of Section 53(1) is applicable in the facts of the case and the Corporation may take appropriate decision within a period of four weeks from the receipt of representation from the petitioners. If in the alternative, application for regularization of the ssp 3 WP 7585 of 2010 construction is made, the same may be considered in accordance with law and hearing may also be given to the petitioners in this behalf. It is clarified that it is for the respondent-Corporation to take appropriate decision in accordance with law. In case the decision is adverse to the petitioners, the same may not be implemented for a period of one week from the date of communication. 4. In view of what is stated above, the writ petitions are disposed of. ( A.A.SAYED, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )