S. P. Kukday, J. - (1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with consent of the parties. Heard both the sides. Perused the records.
(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner company is engaged in' the business of Ginning and Pressing since the year 1938. Shri Pannalal Shivratan bagdia is the Managing Director of said company. The company owns land bearing Survey No. 225, admeasuring 5 hectares and 24 Ares (CTS No. 350) , situated at Jalna. Previously, this portion of land was in an; industrial zone. However, subsequently; municipal Council, Jalna, vide its Resolution dated 13-7-2001, submitted a proposal to the Government on 5-12-2002 for converting use of said land from Industrial to residential purpose. This proposal was approved by the Government. Accordingly, use of land was changed. The petitioner had earlier obtained N. A. permission for using the land for industrial purpose, however, as the use of land changed from industrial to residential purpose, petitioner submitted an application dated 8-5-2003 along with necessary documents for seeking permission to convert use of land from industrial to residential purpose, as required by Section 44 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code). In response to the application, respondent no. 2 sought no objection from as many as 12 authorities. Some of the authorities responded by giving no objections, however, some of the authorities did not give any reply in spite of repeated reminders. In these circumstances, respondent No. 2 sent letter dated 20-5-2004, intimating the petitioner that as No Objections are not received from the concerned authorities, his application is filed for the time being. The petitioner, did not receive this communication dated 20-5-2004, but got knowledge about this communication during the course of inspection of the files. According to petitioner, respondent No. 2 is obliged to decide the application within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of the application as required by sub-section (3) of Section 44 of the Code. As this is not done, the permission can be deemed to have been granted in view of the said sub-section (3) of Section 44 of the Code. Once the prescribed period of ninety days is over, it was not open to respondent No. 2 to file the application. Being aggrieved by this conduct of respondent no. 2, the petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing and setting aside said communication dated 20-5-2004 and for declaration that permission for conversion of user is deemed to have been granted by virtue of Section 44 (3) of the Code.
(3.) During pendency of the petition, respondent No. 3 filed an application for intervention. Hence respondent No. 3 is joined as party respondent. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have filed their affidavits in reply. According to respondent No. 2, efforts were made to dispose of the application at the earliest, however, as some of the authorities did not submit no objections, the application of petitioner could not be disposed of. Hence, disciplinary action is recommended against these authorities. However, it would not be in the interest of the Government to grant permission for N. A. use without securing 'no Objection' from concerned authorities and deciding objections raised by respondent No. 3, by having claimed to be a tenant of the portion of land in question, but has settled the matter out of the Court and has withdrawn his objections.;