ALFIYA ALI SAYYAD Vs. CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Shri G.A.Kunte, learned counsel waives service for the respondents.

(2.) The challenge raised in the present writ petition is to the communication dtd. 11/8/2023 that seeks to implement notice dtd. 2/5/2016 issued under Sec. 53 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, the Act of 1966). The said notice dtd. 2/5/2016 refers to unauthorised construction undertaken by the petitioner at Khasra No.83/2. According to the petitioner, a reply was sent by the husband of the petitioner to the aforesaid notice on 27/5/2016 stating therein that the petitioner was the owner of Khasra No.82/3 and hence he was not concerned with the property mentioned in the notice issued under Sec. 53 of the Act of 1966.

(3.) Shri M. S. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the sale deed dtd. 26/6/2012 by virtue of which the petitioner's husband had purchased the property located in Khasra No.82/3. The property card has been thereafter corrected to indicate the name of the owner of the property. Notice issued under Sec. 53 of the Act of 1966 requires the husband of the petitioner to remove the alleged encroachment standing on Khasra No.83/2. Besides the fact that the property has been wrongly described, it is submitted that the said notice requires the construction to be removed within a period of one month which is not in consonance with Sec. 53 of the Act of 1966. Referring to the decision in Kishor s/ o Ramlu @ Rambhau Telang vs. The Municipal commissioner, Nagpur and others [2016(1) All M R 175], it is submitted that notice period of less than one month would vitiate such notice. It is therefore submitted that such erroneous notice could not be permitted to be executed.