{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6489 OF 2009 Namdeo s/o Baburao Kamble Age-45 years, Occ-Agril R/o Gandheli, Tq & Dist- Aurangabad PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary of Industries, Energy and Labour Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Inspector General of Registration and Collector of Stamps, Maharashtra State, Pune Ground Floor, Opp-Vidhan Bhavan (Council Hall) New administration Building, Pune 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Aurangabad Central Administrative Building, 2nd Floor (South East Cabin) Collector Office Compound, Aurangabad 4. Regional Officer, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Aurangabad RESPONDENTS ....... Ms.S.D.Tambat-Dhumal, Advocate for petitioner Mr.S.V.Kurundkar, Addl.GP for respondents No.1 to 3 Mr.S.S.Dande, Advocate for respondent No.4 ....... WITH {2} WRIT PETITION NO.6519 OF 2009 Savitribai w/o Sahebrao Mhaske Age-45 years, Occ-Agri R/o Balapur, Tq & Dist-Aurangabd PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary of Industries, Energy and Labour Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Inspector General of Registration and Collector of Stamps, Maharashtra State, Pune Ground Floor, Opp-Vidhan Bhavan (Council Hall) New administration Building, Pune 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Aurangabad Central Administrative Building, 2nd Floor (South East Cabin) Collector Office Compound, Aurangabad 4. Regional Officer, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Aurangabad RESPONDENTS ....... Ms.S.D.Tambat-Dhumal, Advocate for petitioner Mr.N.N.Jadhav, AGP for respondents No.1 to 3 Mr.S.S.Dande, Advocate for respondent No.4 ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE: 1st October 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER A.V.POTDAR, J.) : {3} 1. Petitioners, in both these petitions, have challenged the communications dated 14.11.2007, 18.12.2007 and 02.01.2008 issued by Regional Officer MIDC, Aurangabad, Inspector General of Registration, Pune and Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Aurangabad, respectively, by which the respondents have refused registration of the lands notified for SEZ under notification dated 04.01.2007 and as these petitions raise common question of law, therefore, these petitions are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Considering the limited relief claimed by the petitioners, in these petitions, we consider it appropriate to hear these petitions finally at the stage of admission by issuing rule and making in returnable forthwith. 3. It is not disputed that the properties of the petitioners are notified vide notification issued by respondent No.4 under the provisions of Maharashtra Industrial Development Act and because of the said notification, prohibitory orders are issued by respondent No.2 and in turn by respondent No.3 to their subordinate officers directing them not to register the transactions of the lands from notified area. 4. The controversy involved in these petitions is already decided by this Court vide judgment dated 01.09.2009 delivered in writ petitions No.5775/2009, 5781/2009, 5782/2009 and 5783/2009. Learned counsel appearing for the parties are in agreement that the controversy involved in these petitions is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions. In the premise, the writ petitions must succeed. {4} 5. In the result, we allow these petitions. We quash and set aside the communications dated 14.11.2007, 18.12.2007 and 02.01.2008 issued by Regional Officer MIDC, Aurangabad, Inspector General of Registration, Pune and Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Aurangabad, respectively by which registration of the lands falling in the notified area for SEZ vide notification dated 04.01.2007 are prohibited. 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp6489-09