1 mp t IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5946 OF 2008 M/s.J.H. Bhambani .. Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & ors. .. Respondents ... Mr.P.S.Dani i/b Parag B.Shelke for the petitioner. Mr.V.S.Sonpal AGP for respondent nos.1, 3 and 4. Mr.P.P.Chavan i/b M/s.Navdeep Vora & Associates for respondent no.2. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE AND D.G. KARNIK, JJ DATED : 23rd January 2009 P.C.: . Heard Mr.Dani with Mr.Shelke, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Chavan appears for respondent no.2 and Mr.Sonpal, AGP appears for respondent nos.1, 3 and 4. 2 . Respondent no.2 addressed a letter dated 3th April 2008 to respondent no.3 requesting for the recovery of Rs.6,30,951/- by way of arrears of land revenue from the petitioner. Consequently, petitioner received notice dated 1st August 2008 from the office of respondent no.3 u/s.180 and 181 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966 calling upon the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.6,30,951/-. The said notice is under challenge in Appeal no.284 of 2008 before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and the appeal is pending as of now. Hence, this Writ Petition. . During the course of arguments, Mr.Dani, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that no notice or an order passed by respondent no.2 for recovery of the amount of Rs.6,30,951/- has been received by the petitioner and the petitioner was surprised to receive the notices dated 20th May 2008 and 1st August 2008 from respondent nos.3 and 4. As per Mr.Dani in the pending appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, the legality of the order of recovery passed by respondent no.2 cannot be gone into. He further submitted that unless the petitioner was heard on the computation of the amount of recovery subsequent to the notice issued to him by 3 MIDC, such an action of recovery is unsustainable. . The last of the notice addressed to the petitioner by the respondent no.2 and which is placed on record before us is dated 13th January 2006. It refers to the earlier correspondence between the parties and it states that it responds to the notice dated 12th January 2006, on 14th December 2005 and 20th December 2005 the parties may and joint inspection of the work executed was carried out. It further states that the petitioner had requested vide his letter dated 28th December 2005 for time to rectify the defects. It was pointed out that as he failed to rectify the defects in the work executed by him, the repair work was being executed by engaging some other agency. However, the cost of such repair would be recovered from the petitioner and the petitioner would also face the action of black listing. Mr.Chavan placed before us the original file and the petitioner had suffered the action of black listing which is not sought to be challenged in this petition. As noted earlier, the petitioner’s grievance is limited to the extent that he was not heard while computing the amount of income. . Mr.Chavan, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 on oral instructions states that the 4 said respondent will hear the petitioner on 3rd February 2009 and the petitioner shall remain present in the office of respondent no.2 between 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on that day. After hearing the petitioner, fresh order of computation would be passed by respondent no.2 and a copy thereof will be served on the petitioner within one week thereof. . Petition is disposed in terms of the above directions. . The amount deposited with the Registry of this court would be subject to the fresh order to be passed by respondent no.2. (D.G. KARNIK, J) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J)