1 902-wp-7132-2017.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7132 OF 2017 Prakashchand Hiralal Karnawat VERSUS The Director Of Marketing M S Pune And Others ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Suryawanshi Kamlakar J. AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.K. Shirse Advocate for Respondent Nos.5A to 5B : Mr. Mukul S. Kulkarni Advocate for Respondent No.4 : Mr. W.S. Jadhav ... CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATED : AUGUST 21, 2026 P.C.: 1. The petitioner and deceased respondent no.5 are real brothers. The respondent no.5 has expired and is represented by his legal heirs in present petition. The father of petitioner and respondent no.5, Late Hiralal was allotted a plot by respondent no.4/Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC), Lasur. Hiralal, the father expired in the year 2003. The plot was allotted by lease for a period of 30 years commencing from 12.08.1983. The tenure of lease expired on 11.08.2013. After the demise of Hiralal, respondent no.5 had approached the APMC for renewal of lease of plot in his name. The APMC had passed a resolution dated 30.01.2015 interalia taking a decision to allot the suit plot to respondent no.5. Thereafter, another resolution was passed on 29.04.2015 in which it was decided that all 2026:BHC-AUG:38140 2 902-wp-7132-2017.odt the legal heirs of original allottee Hiralal must obtain heirship certificate from the competent authority and decision to allot the plot should be taken in accordance with heirship certificate issued by the competent authority. 2. Respondent no.5 approached the respondent no.3/District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies with an application to direct respondent no.4/APMC to execute the lease deed in his favour as per first resolution dated 30.01.2015. Respondent no.3 vide order/communication dated 18.04.2016 directed the respondent no.4/APMC to execute lease deed with respect to the suit plot in favour of respondent no.5. The said order/communication dated 18.04.2016 was assailed by the present petitioner by filing appeal under Section 43 of APMC Act before respondent no.2/Divisional Joint Registrar of Co- operative Societies. The said appeal preferred by the petitioner came to be allowed vide order dated 23.01.2017. The Divisional Joint Registrar has quashed and set aside order dated 18.04.2016 passed by District Deputy Registrar/respondent no.3. However, prior to passing of said order, respondent no.4 had already executed lease deed in favour of respondent no.5 on 27.05.2016. Respondent no.2 has observed that it was not necessary to take decision on prayers for cancellation of lease deed and that scope of appeal was restricted to correctness or otherwise of order/communication dated 18.04.2016 passed by respondent 3 902-wp-7132-2017.odt no.3/District Deputy Registrar. 3. The said order dated 23.01.2017 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar was challenged by respondent no.5 by filing an appeal under Section 52B of APMC Act before respondent no.1/Director of Marketing. The said appeal came to be allowed vide order dated 20.05.2017. Respondent no.1 has quashed and set aside order dated 23.01.2017 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar and directed respondent no.4/APMC to handover the suit plot to respondent no.5 in accordance with registered lease deed executed in his favour. The petitioner has challenged the said order dated 20.05.2017 passed by the Director of Marketing. 4. Before adverting to rival submissions, it will be appropriate to state that after the impugned order dated 20.05.2017 was passed, learned Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Gangapur vide order dated 07.08.2019 issued heirship certificate in form Appendix-B of Bombay Regulations VIII of 1827 in favour of petitioner, respondent no.5 and their five sisters. It is not in dispute that present petitioner is allotted independent plot by APMC and he is conducting his business from the said property. Apart from the petitioner, another plot in APMC premises is also allotted to his son. Likewise, it is also not in dispute that respondent no.5 is not allotted any premises by the APMC. Likewise, apart from present petitioner and respondent no.5, five daughters of 4 902-wp-7132-2017.odt original allottee Hiralal is also his Class-I legal heirs. The initial order/communication dated 18.04.2016 is issued by respondent no.3/District Deputy Registrar without notice or hearing either to the petitioner or sisters of respondent no.5. The lease deed dated 27.05.2016 is executed pursuant to said order dated 18.04.2016 passed by respondent no.3/District Deputy Registrar. It must also be stated that the subsequent resolution dated 29.04.2015 resolving that allotment of plot will be done in accordance with heirship certificate to be produced by descendants of original allottee Hiralal is not challenged by either parties and still holding the field. 5. In such circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, rather than going into merits of matter, it will be appropriate that respondent no.4/APMC is directed to take a fresh decision in the matter with respect to allotment of suit plot by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, respondent no.5 and five sisters, whose names are included in aforesaid heirship certificate. 6. Writ Petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 20.05.2017 passed by respondent no.1/Director of Marketing in Appeal No.05 of 2017 is quashed and set aside. 7. The respondent no.5/APMC shall take fresh decision in the matter in accordance with law. The earlier orders passed by the authorities shall not be binding on authorities of APMC while such 5 902-wp-7132-2017.odt decision is taken. Fresh decision be taken as early as possible and in any case before 31.12.2026. [ROHIT W. JOSHI J.] Mujaheed//