Bombay High Court
Laxmikant Sawant vs The Municipal Corporation Of ... on 8 August, 2023
Bench: Sunil B. Shukre, Anuja Prabhudessai
2023:BHC-OS:8145-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION NO. 19 OF 2023
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 84 OF 2017
Laxmikant Sawant ... Petitioner
V/s.
The Municipal Corporation of ... Respondents
Greater Mumbai and 7 Ors.
-------------------
Mr. Sanjay Jain with Mr. Vishal Thaker with Ms. Anjali Trivedi i/by V
Thakers' for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Shashtri, AGP for respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6.
Mr. R.M. Hajare I.by Mr. Sunil Sonawane for respondent nos. 1 to 3-
Corporation.
Ms. Shruti Shetty, i/by M.V. Kini and Co. for respondent nos. 7 and 8.
---------------------
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE &
SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.J.
DATE : 8th AUGUST 2023.
P.C. :
. Heard.
2. We find that the challenge made by the petitioner to the
impugned orders relating to mutation entries was based upon some
contentions which, inter alia, related to the aspect of allotment of plot
numbers 443 and 444 under the Town Planning Scheme to the
petitioner and right of the petitioner to seek possession of those plots
in view of the provisions made in the Maharashtra Regional Town
RPW-19-2023 IN WP-84-2017.doc
varsha 1 of 3
Planning Act, 1966.
3. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner
that unless these contentions of the petitioner are permitted to be
raised before the alternate forum, the findings recorded by this Court
to the effect that in respect of the mutation entries the petitioner has
an alternate remedy would be of no significance to the petitioner. He
further submits that since these contentions have not been expressly
kept open while passing the orders sought to be reviewed, an error
apparent on the face of the record has crept in the order.
4. We agree with the aforestated submission of learned
counsel for the petitioner. Of course, there is no submission made on
behalf of the respondent nos 4, 5 and 6 that even these contentions of
the petitioner, which he wishes to raise before the alternate forum are
without any water, in view of the fact that now the Apex Court has
already settled the law on the issue when it states in its judgment in
the case of 'Shiv Kumar and Another V/s. Union of India and Others''1
that, "subsequent purchaser of acquired land does not acquire any
right in the land concerned as the sale is ab initio void and he has no
right to claim that land under the policy of law". This submission, in
our view pertains to merits of the contentions sought to be kept open
by the petitioner and therefore, would have to be made before the
alternate forum, as and when they are raised before it.
5. In the result, we find that there is an error apparent on the
face of the record in the order sought to be reviewed to limited extent
1 (2019) 10 SCC 229
RPW-19-2023 IN WP-84-2017.doc
varsha 2 of 3
as discussed above. The review petition is, therefore, partly allowed
and in modification of the order dated 13 th December 2019, we direct
that all contentions of the petitioner in respect of the plots in question
which he claim to be allotted to him under the Town Planning Scheme
are kept open to be adjudicated before the appropriate alternate
forum. Similarly all contentions of learned counsel for respondent nos.
4, 5 and 6 and remaining respondents in this regard are also kept
open. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
(SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J)
RPW-19-2023 IN WP-84-2017.doc
varsha 3 of 3
