1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2629 OF 2007 Soleri Land Development Pvt. Ltd. ..... Petitioners. V/s State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..... Respondents. ------ Mr. Vaibhav Krishna i/b M/s Juris Consillis for the Petitioners. Mr. R.M. Kadam, Advocate General alongwith Mr. D.A. Nalawade, Government Pleader for the State. Mr. K.K. Singhvi alongwith Mr. P.A. Purandare for the BMC. Mr. P. N. Misra, Senior Counsel with Mr. D. Brijesh for the Intervenors. ---- CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 23RD APRIL, 2008. P.C.: 1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties for some time. 2. Petitioner, in the present Petition, has challenged the correctness of the order dated 5th/6th August, 2007 vide which the entry in the property records in the name of the 2 Petitioner has been freezed. It is further prayed that the proceedings in furtherance to complaint dated 03/07/2007 should not be permitted to be concluded without the petitioner being heard in accordance with law. 3. The claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner had purchased the property in dispute by a conveyance deed dated 20/12/1994 and the name of the petitioner was duly entered in the property card and the entry has been freezed by the impugned order in violation of rights of the Petitioner and contrary to the provisions of the statute. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation and M/s Parul Enterprises submit that they have not been heard by the Collector before the impugned order was passed. According to the Corporation, their rights are involved and they ought to be heard before any order adverse to their interest is passed. The learned Counsel appearing for M/s Parul Enterprises has argued that even in the conveyance deed dated 20/12/1994, the rights flowing in favour of the Petitioner were subject to restrictions contemplated in recitals of the document and they were subject to the rights of the Corporation, other authorities as well as the said applicant. 5. Be that as it may, it is not necessary for us to examine merit or otherwise of the contentions raised before us during the course of hearing. Suffice it to note that, apparently, 3 there is violation of the maxim audi alteram partem. The rights of the parties particularly in relation to the property could not be freezed or adversely affected without affording proper opportunity to the concerned parties. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State fairly stated that they would not give effect to the freezing of the entry as contemplated in the order dated 5th/6th August, 2007 but would pass an order afresh after hearing the Corporation, M/s Parul Enterprises and the Petitioner in accordance with law. The interim order passed would continue. The competent authority shall pass order within six weeks from today. Liberty to the parties to challenge the order if the same is adverse to their interest in accordance with law. None of the parties would be entitled to take advantage or claim equities, of the interim order till final order is passed. 6. Petition is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE V.M. KANADE, J.