CHANDRAKANT RAMJI MASURKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both Interim Applications seek identical reliefs. Interim Application No. 326 of 2023 is by members of the Masurkar family. The Interim Application seeks that the cause title be amended to delete the name of the Masurkar's Constituted Attorney Darshan Rajendra Jain and to allow this to be substituted with the name of Rajendra Chandrakant Masurkar. In Interim Application No. 327 of 2023, the Applicants are the Kotawadekar family. Here, they seek that Darshan Rajendra Jain be deleted from the cause title as the Constituted Attorney of the Petitioners.

(2.) Darshan Jain had immovable property dealings in the form of a development agreement or development agreements with both the Masurkar family and the Kotawadekar family. These development agreements are apparently of the years of 2002 or 2003 and each was accompanied by what is said to have been an irrevocable Power of Attorney. On the strength of those Powers of Attorney, and in his capacity as a Constituted Attorney, Darshan Jain filed this Writ Petition seeking that reservations imposed by the Ratnagiri Municipal Corporation under the development plan on an area of 6936 sq mtrs at village Rahatgaon, Survey No. 85, Hissa No. 3 (part) and 5 (part) and Survey No. 85 Hissa No. 4A (part) be removed. Ancillary lists are also sought.

(3.) The entire focus of the Petition is on the deletion of these reservations. There is some interim relief in favour of the Petitioners.