1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 132 OF 2009 Rajesh R. Pandey ...Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Suresh P. Chaugule for the Petitioner Mr. P.G. Lad, Assistant Government Pleader, for Respondents No. 1 and 3 Ms. G.S. Joglekar for Respondent No. 2 Ms. Kiran Bagalia for Respondent No. 4 Mr. Rajiv Narula i/by M/s. J. Narula & Associates for Respondent No. 5. CORAM: J. N. PATEL AND S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ. DATE: APRIL 29, 2010. P.C.:- We have gone through the affidavit-in-reply filed by Mr. Yeshwant V. Tidke, Deputy Colector (Enc/Rem) and Competent Authority, Malad. In the affidavit-in-reply, it is specifically stated that 2 the plots of land, i.e., C.T.S. Nos. 1083 and 1085, belong to respondent No.5, and that the said plots are covered under C.R.Z. and fall under No Development Zone. There is a shed admeasuring 10 feet x 10 feet, and the plots are fenced by barbed wire. 2. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 submits that this shed is constructed for safeguarding the property, and it cannot be said to be in the nature of any development. 3. In view of this, we do not find any substance in the petition so as to entertain it in public interest. It is for the respondent-authorities to see that the owners do not carry out any unauthorised construction on these plots, which are admittedly within C.R.Z. and notified as No Development Zone. The petition is dismissed. J. N. PATEL, J. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.