ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.4392 OF PETITION NO.4392 OF PETITION NO.4392 OF 1991 1991 1991 Smt. Geetabai Namdeo Kumbhar, (since deceased by her husband) Namdeo Kondaji Kumbhar, R/o. Mumbra, Tq. & Dist. Thane. ...Petitioner. Vs. 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Bombay. 3. The Collector Thane. 4. The Additional Collector, Thane. 5. The Assistant Collector, Thane. ...Respondents. Ms.Swati M.Tekavde for the Petitioner. Mr.P.P.Kakade, AGP for the Respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. DATED DATED DATED : 2nd March, 2009 : 2nd March, 2009 : 2nd March, 2009 ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGMENT:- JUDGMENT:- JUDGMENT:- . This Court has admitted this Writ Petition on 22nd June, 1991 and by order dated 13th October, 2006, the Court has directed the Respondents to file reply, with regard to the alleged discrimination and aspect of regularization in such matters. ( 2 ) 2. By an affidavit dated 14th November, 2006, Respondent No.5 has stated as under:- "9. I say that the order dated 2.2.1977 passed by my predecessor was basically on the ground that the land under reference falls within the Greater Bombay Urban Agglomeration as defined under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. 10. I say that as per the G.R. Dated 4.4.2002 the Commissioner of the Thane Municipal Corporation is chairman of the committee who decides whether this encroachment can be regularised or not, from the point of view of development plan. Attached hereto and marked the Exhibit I is the copy of G.R. dt. 4.4.2002. 11. I say that as per G.R. No. LND/10/2002/CR/387/J-1, dt. 29.5.2006 the Collector Thane has to fix the valuation of encroached land on the date of regularisation of said encroached land and such amount shall be recovered from the petitioner as described in para 2 (a) of the said G.R. dt. 29.5.2006. Attached hereto and marked Exhibit II is the copy of G.R. dated 29.5.2006." 3. In view of this, it is desirable that the concerned authority to pass appropriate order within a reasonable time as the Application is pending since 1976 and even otherwise, the Petitioner is Senior Citizen, aged above 75 years. ( 3 ) 4. Resultantly, the Petition is disposed of with directions that Respondent No.3, the concerned authority as per the affidavit, to dispose of the same preferably within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of the copy of the order. 5. The Petition is accordingly disposed of. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. (ANOOP (ANOOP (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.)