1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6912 OF 2007 Smt.Kamla Gurdas Wadhwa .. Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Sahil Kanuga for petitioner Ms.V.S.Mhaispurkar, A.G.P. for State. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 6th February 2008 P.C. . This petition is challenging an order/communication at Exh.I page 67 of the petition paperbook whereunder, the petitioner before me has been informed that this application for granting conveyance deed for a portion of the property more particularly described in the impugned order, cannot be considered and granted 2 because the application is dated 15th September 2006, the Act has been repealed on 6th September 2005 and further, on and from 3rd October 2005, the work of issuance of conveyance deed under the Act has been stopped by the authorities. 2. The submission of Mr.Kanuga is that the right to apply for conveyance deed and to obtain it so also for the authority to consider the said request and grant it, repealing of the enactment in question cannot be made a ground to refuse the relief. In other words, Mr.Kanuga’s submission is that the right to apply for this relief/ conveyance deed accrues and is vested by virtue of enactment in question and its repealing subsequently would have no bearing at all. In this light of the matter, the impugned order is untenable in law. 3. An affidavit is filed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and in paras 2 and 3 3 thereof, this is what is stated:- "2. I state that the occupation of the land admeasuring 6768.7/9 square yards bearing U.No.25, Sheet No.66, Camp-5, is in the name of Shri Raichand Amulmal. Out of the total occupation under this office change of name letter No.SDO/Plot/C-5/ME.No.158/2006, dated 23/8/2006, the area admeasuring 743.3/9 square yards is changed in the name of Smt.Kamla Gurudas Wadhwa (Petitioner). The Screening Committee held on 18/7/1981 has regularised the constructed portion admeasuring 10 square yards and remaining portion of U.No.25, Sheet No.66, Camp-5 is not regularised and, therefore, the present petitioner is not entitled for regularisation and issue of the Conveyance Deed for the occupation of the land area admeasuring 743.3/9 sq.yards 4 bearing U.No.25, Sheet No.66, Camp-5. In view of the aforesaid facts that the petitioner cannot take help of the order as the Hon’ble High Court order dated 12/11/1992 in Writ Petition No.4681 of 1985, is not applicable for the present occupation of the land of the petitioner." "3. I state that the petitioner is not satisfied with the decision or order of the Screening Committee or Managing Officer cum Sub-Divisional Officer, Ulhasnagar, they can file appeal/revision petition with the authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner under Section 24 of D.P. Act." 4. In my view, the reasons assigned in para 2 of the impugned order would show that the authorities are now trying to justify their 5 conclusion not on the ground that the application itself was not maintainable, but on the merits of the same. That was clearly impermissible because he had no opportunity to meet the said conclusion or the contents of the said affidavit. In other words, now justifying the impugned order on the ground that on merits as well, the petitioner was not entitled to a conveyance deed itself would show that his initial application was maintainable and should have been considered on merits. 5. Ms.Mhaispurkar, relying upon this affidavit and the appellate provisions would urge that the petitioner has an alternate remedy and he should have questioned this communication in appeal. 6. However, Ms.Mhaispurkar with all her ability at command could not justify the conclusion reached that the repealing of the 6 enactment by itself would be enough to deny the request. In such circumstances, relegating petitioner to the remedy of the appeal would serve no purpose. Petition is, therefore, clearly maintainable. 7. In the light of the contents of para 2 of the affidavit in reply, in my view, interest of justice would be sub-served if the communication at page 67 dated 22nd September 2006 is quashed and set aside and the application dated 15th September 2006 is restored to the file of the Competent Authority for being considered afresh and without being influenced by the earlier communication. Accordingly, the said application is restored to the file of S.D.O. Ulhasnagar for consideration afresh on merits. The S.D.O. to grant personal hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on merits uninfluenced by the subject communication, as expeditiously as possible and within a period of six weeks from 7 the date the petitioner appears before him. Petitioner to appear before the S.D.O. on 18th February 2008 at 11.00 a.m. Petition allowed in the above terms. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)