Heard Mr.Ajay S. Jagirdar, learned advocate for the petitioner. It is submitted by him that the order of the City Survey Superintendent dated 29.01.2005 has been passed without issuance of notice to the petitioner and without affording him an opportunity of hearing. It is further submitted that the Assistant Collector, while passing the impugned order dated 11.03.2011, has not considered the fact that the property of the petitioner is covered by the said order. It is further submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that though there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner, but due to the fact that the petitioner has not been heard by the City Survey Superintendent, whose order has been upheld by the Collector, the principles of natural justice have been violated and as per the dicta of the Supreme Court, enunciated in Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks Mumbai and others reported in 1998 (8) SCC 1, the alternative remedy may not act as a bar for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Issue Notice, returnable on 21.02.2012.
By way of ad-interim relief, it is directed that status-quo be maintained in respect of the land of which the petitioner is in possession, till the next date of hearing.
Direct Service is also permitted.
(Smt. Abhilasha Kumari, J.) rakesh/ Top