1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Civil Application No.6922 of 2008. In Writ Petition No.3108 of 2007. Droupadi Baijanath Katkar. Vs. Sarvansingh S/o Pavitrasingh Saluja ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances,Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri A. Parchure, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. OD Kakde, A.G.P. for R-1. Shri M. I. Dhatrak Advocate for Respondent no.2. Shri JB Kasat Advocate for Intervener. Coram: B. H. Marlapalle and A. H. JOSHI, JJ. Dated: 3rd October 2008. 1. Heard Mr. Kasat the learned Counsel for the applicant. 2. The applicant states that subject property in Writ Petition NO.3108 of 2007 has been purchased by him from Respondent no.3 during pendency of the said petition, and therefore, he prays for being impleaded as Respondent no.4 in the said petition. 3. Application is allowed and the 2 applicant is directed to be impleaded as Respondent NO.4, and as per the learned Counsel, the transaction is prior to the filing of the petition. 4. Petition memo be amended on or before 10-10-2008. WRIT PETITION NO.3108/2007. 5. Heard Mr. Parchure, learned Counsel for the petitioner. 6. Mr. Dhatrak appears for respondent no.2 and Mr. Kasat appears for the respondent no.4. 7. As the Respondent no.3 has sold the property to Respondent no.4, he has not caused his appearance despite service of notice by this Court. 8. We have perused the affidavit- in-reply filed by Respondent no.2. It has been stated by Respondent No.2 that spot inspection was made on 4-9-2008 in respect of construction undertaken by Respondent no.3 consequent to the permission granted on 15-3-2007, and it has been noticed that Respondent NO.3 3 had started the construction beyond the permission granted. Consequently, notice under Section 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, has been issued on 9-9-2008 against Respondent NO.3 calling upon him to remove the un-authorised construction within 30 days. 9. If Respondent no.4, who claims to be the successor of Respondent no.3, does not take steps to remove the unauthorized construction as per the notice dated 9-9-2008 before 8-10-2008, we direct the Respondent NO.2 to demolish the unauthorized construction and recover the costs of demolition from Respondent NO.4 before 15-10-2008. 10. Petition is disposed of in terms of the above direction. JUDGE JUDGE Sbm