Bombay High Court
Abhay Rasiklal Luniya And Others vs The Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation ... on 13 December, 2023
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2023:BHC-AUG:26177-DB
901.CA.14814.23.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
901 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14814 OF 2023
IN REVIEW APPLICATION (ST) NO.35820/2023
WITH
REVIEW APPLICATION (ST) NO.35820/2023
IN WRIT PETITION NO.9013/2018
1. Abhay Rasiklal Luniya
2. Rahul Subhash Sonimandelecha
3. Manisha Rahul Sonimandelecha
4. Mrunalini Yeshwant Darekar
5. Prasad Pramod Bora
6. Shobha Vijay Munot
7. Vidya Rajendra Sobale
8. Ajit Nemichand Kasliwal
9. Mangal Mahavir Chhajed
10. Sunita Rajendra Kothari
11. Vijay Anbarchand Ghandhi
12. Vaibhav Vikram Dabhade
13. Vishal Vikram Dabhade ... APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1. The Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation
through its Deputy Commissioner
2. The Agriculture Produce Market
Committee Ahmednagar,
Kisan Kranti Building, Station Road,
Market Yard, Ahmadnagar,
through its Secretary ... RESPONDENTS
902 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14815 OF 2023
IN REVIEW APPLICATION (ST) NO.35824/2023
WITH
REVIEW APPLICATION (ST) NO.35824/2023
IN WRIT PETITION NO.9022/2018
1. Koushik Pravinchand Kothari
2. Dhanashree Dhananjay Joshi
3. Nanasaheb Eknath Deshmukh
4. Sangram Santosh Suryawanshi
5. Komal Sandesh Munot
1/4
901.CA.14814.23.odt
6. Nitin Popatlal Shingavi
7. Kiran Amarlal Darda
8. Bhaskar Vamanrao Pawar
9. Sourabh Anil Bhalgat
10. Dhanesh Ganeshmal Kothari
11. Dipali Dhanesh Kothari
12. Ritesh Ramesh Sonimandelecha
13. Rahul Sunil Aouti
14. Avinash Bhanudas Pawar ... APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1. The Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation
Ahmednagar, through
its Deputy Commissioner
2. The Agriculture Produce Market
Committee Ahmednagar,
Kisan Kranti Building, Station Road,
Market Yard, Ahmadnagar,
through its Secretary ... RESPONDENTS
...
Advocate for applicants : Mr. S.S. Thombre
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.
DATE : 13.12.2023
PER COURT:
The original petitioners from the Writ Petition No.9013/2018
and the Writ Petition No.9022/2018 have filed these review applications
along with applications for condonation of delay in filing review
applications.
2. The delay in filing the review applications are condoned.
The applications are disposed of.
3. The petitioners are the lease holders of different plots of the
Agriculture Produce Market Committee (APMC) who are seeking review
of the judgment and order dated 30.06.2023, whereby, their petitions
901.CA.14814.23.odt
were dismissed and the respondent No.3 - Municipal Corporation,
Ahmednagar was directed to take necessary steps for removal of illegal,
unauthorized construction/encroachment raised in the area of open
spaces earmarked in the sanctioned layout plan for the APMC,
Ahmednagar particularly final plot Nos.17 and 23, pursuant to the
notices served to the APMC under Sections 52,53 and 54 of the MRTP
Act, 1966 read with Section 260 (1)(2) and Section 478 of the
Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act and soliciting a compliance
report within three months.
4. The order was challenged before the Supreme Court by the
present petitioners in SLP No.17414/2023. Following is the order passed
by the Supreme Court :
"We do not find any good ground and reason to interfere with the
impugned judgment and hence, the special leave petitions are dismissed.
However, we clarify that the impugned judgment/order and the dismissal
of the present special leave petitions would not come in the way of The
Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Ahmednagar, in filing an
application for change of the layout plan or for construction of shops in
areas where such shops are permitted to be constructed. If any such
application is filed, the same would be considered and examined in
accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible.
The Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Ahmednagar will be
permitted to use open plots in accordance with law.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
5. It is now being submitted by the learned advocate for the
petitioners that pursuant to the observations of the Supreme Court, the
APMC has taken steps and modified/revised the plan which has been
approved yesterday by the corporation.
901.CA.14814.23.odt
6. When we asked the learned advocate for the petitioners as to
if the petitioners are seeking to demonstrate any error apparent on the
face of the record or any other ground which would enable the
petitioners to seek review, particularly after the order of this Court was
confirmed up to the Supreme Court, he would submit that in the light of
the supervening events, the petitioners are now entitled to protect their
possession in view of the revised plan and that cannot happen till the
time the order under review subsists.
7. When no formal defect or error apparent on the face of the
record is being demonstrated and the petitioners are merely pointing out
the supervening events, in our considered view this Court cannot
undertake the review of the order which has reached finality in the light
of dismissal of the SLP. The supervening events may give rise to an
altogether different cause of action but cannot be the basis and ground
for seeking review.
8. If at all the petitioners are banking upon the supervening
events to demonstrate as to how the order under review cannot be
enforced, it would always be open for them to resort to appropriate
remedy.
9. The Review Applications are dismissed.
(S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
habeeb
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 14/12/2023 19:06:36
