1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5450 OF 2010 Ambadas S/o Pundalik Bankar, Age : 41 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o HUDCO, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad. .. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary of Industrial, Energy and Labour Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Inspector General of Registration and Collector of Stamp, Maharashtra State, Pune, Ground Floor, Opp. to Vividh Bhavan, (Council Hall), New Administration Building, Pune. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Aurangabad Division, Central Administrative Building IInd Floor (South East Cabin), Collector Office Compound, Aurangabad. 2 4. The Regional Officer, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Aurangabad. .. .. Respondents Shri Manoj Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri K. J. Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Shri S. S. Dande, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4. CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 23RD JUNE, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [PER N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for directions that the impugned letter dated 14.11.2007 issued by respondent No. 4, letter dated 18.12.2007 issued by respondent No. 2 and the letter dated 02.01.2008 issued by respondent No. 3 thereby refusing to register the instrument, be quashed and set aside. 3 3. We have heard Mr. Manoj Shinde, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K. J. Ghute Patil, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. S. S. Dande, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. 4. The petitioner was desirous of selling his property and for that purpose was required to execute registered conveyance. The respondents vide the impugned communications, communicated the petitioner that the conveyance cannot be registered in view of the letter issued by respondent No. 3. 5. The learned counsel for respondent No. 4 states that the said communication has been withdrawn and by letter dated 04.02.2010, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have been informed that the sale deeds can be registered as per law. 6. In view of the fact that respondent No. 3 has withdrawn its earlier letter putting embargo on the registration, we direct the respondents to register the conveyance submitted by the petitioner, if otherwise, it confirms to all other requirements as per law. 4 7. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. The parties may act upon copy of this judgment duly authenticated by the Court Sheristedar. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ P. V. HARDAS, J.] bsb/June 10