1 lpa264.11.sxw ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 264 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 7500 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 330 OF 2011 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 264 OF 2011 Mira Bhayandar Builders and Development Welfare Association & Anr. ....Appellants Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. Virag Tulzapurkar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Sakhardare, Mr. Suraj Juneja, Mr. Swapnil Khatri i/by M/s. Wadia Ghandy and Co. for the Appellants. Mr. S.R. Nargolkar, Addl. G.P. For Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Mandar Limaye for Respondent No.4. Mr. Kevic Setalwad, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Sheetal Dasgupta i/by M/s. Mehta and Girdharlal for Respondent No.5. CORAM :- D.K DESHMUKH AND ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE :- 11 OCTOBER, 2011. P.C. :- This Appeal takes exception to an order passed by the learned Single Judge which is a common order. The Appellants had filed Writ 2 lpa264.11.sxw ssm Petition No. 7500 of 2008. We have disposed of appeals filed against the same order of the learned Single Judge and have held that the learned Single Judge was satisfied in not entertaining the petitions against the order of the Collector. This appeal, in our opinion, cannot be entertained for an additional reason. The Appellant No.1 who is the Petitioner No.1 in the Writ Petition claims to be a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It claims to be an Association of Builders, constructing buildings in areas of the following villages- (a) Bhyandar (b) Navghar, (c) Goddav, (d) Mira, (e) Ghodbunder, (f) Khari, (g) Penkarpada, (h) Mahajanwadi and (i) Versova, District Thane. 2 What is stated in paragraph Nos. 3,4 and 5 is relevant and the same read as under:- “3. The impugned Orders are most likely to affect the rights of the persons who own the property and/or have purchased the flats from the members of the Petitioner No.1 i.e. builders who have constructed buildings in the Mira Bhayandar area and or other areas as aforesaid. The Impugned Orders affect the various purchasers of the flats and the interest of the Purchasers of the flats alongwith the interest of the members of the Petitioner No.1 is required to be 3 lpa264.11.sxw ssm protected and hence, this Petition. 4. Number of builders have entered into Agreement for Sale/Purchase of the land and/or Development Agreement of land within the limits of the Respondent No.4 and the Impugned Orders require them to bring No Objection Certificate from the Respondent No.5. Thus the two impugned orders affect the development rights of the members of the Petitioner No.1 (including the Petitioner No.2) and hence, the Petitioners have locus to institute the present petition. 5. The Petitioner No.1 has more than 250 members who are builders and have constructed not less than 20000 buildings in the said Villages in accordance with the Development Control Rules.” 3 The Appellants thus do not disclose what are the names of the members of the Petitioners, what are the lands, what are the survey numbers that have been purchased where buildings have been constructed and who has purchased the flats. The Petition in short absolutely is vague and therefore, the Appellants in our opinion cannot be permitted to challenge the order made by the Collector in relation to the liability for payment of land revenue in relation to certain lands. When this objection was raised on behalf of the Respondents, the learned counsel appearing for the Appellants submits that such an objection was not raised before the learned Single Judge and therefore, it cannot be entertained by us. The 4 lpa264.11.sxw ssm learned Single Judge has decided several Petitions challenging the same order. Therefore, he may not have gone through the Petition individually. However, in our opinion looking to the averments in the Petition, it is clear that the way in which the Petition has been drafted, cannot be held to be maintainable for challenging the order of the Collector. In our opinion therefore, it will not be appropriate to entertain the Appeal. 4 The Appeal is rejected. There shall be no order as to costs. 5 The Civil Application No. 330 of 2011 is also disposed of. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)