{1} 920-wp-1419-2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 920 WRIT PETITION NO. 1419 OF 2024 Shaikh Ayaj Shaikh Hamid And Others VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra Others ... Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. K.J. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. N.D. Batule, AGP for State Mr. Rahul Khadap, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 Mr. Amol Sawant, Advocate for Respondents No. 3 ....... CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT : 1. By this petition, petitioners challenge the order dated 17.01.2024 passed by Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Beed under Section 51 of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, thereby layout plan sanctioned on 11.01.2021 was cancelled. 2. Petitioners were owners of land Survey No. 108 admeasuring 3 Acres and Survey No. 119 admeasuring 40 Are situated within the limits of Municipal Council, Beed. Petitioners applied for NA permission to the District Collector, Beed. District Collector, Beed called report from Town Planner, Beed. Town Planner, Beed submitted report dated 13.12.2018 to the District Collector and recommended for giving NA 2026:BHC-AUG:45580 {2} 920-wp-1419-2024 permission. After receipt of report from Town Planner, the report of Circle Officer, Beed was called. After following the due procedure, Tahsildar, Beed issued order dated 11.09.2019 under Section 42-A of MLR Code and granted permission to develop the Survey Nos. 108 and 119. On 06.11.2020, Respondent No. 2 granted provisional approval to the layout plan prepared by the petitioners. Petitioners deposited amount of Rs. 2,46,475/- towards development charges and scrutiny fees. As per terms and conditions of provisional layout sanction letter dated 06.11.2020 issued by Respondent No. 2, the open space and roads shown in the layout plan were to be handed over to the Respondent No. 2. Accordingly, petitioners executed relinquishment deed dated 08.02.2021 of 6688.47 sq.mtr. Area from Survey Nos. 108 and 119 in favour of Respondent No. 2. On 11.01.2021, Respondent No. 2 issued final permission for residential purpose. Thereafter, petitioners sold the said plots from Survey Nos. 108 and 119 to different persons by executing registered sale deed. The subsequent purchasers have applied for construction permission to Respondent No. 2 and permissions were granted to the purchasers for construction of houses. All most more than 90% construction have been completed and purchasers are residing therein. {3} 920-wp-1419-2024 3. On the basis of complaint of alleged social worker made on 02.09.2022, Collector, Beed issued letter dated 21.04.2023 to Respondent No. 2 to cancel the layout plan of Survey Nos. 108 and 119. Accordingly, Respondent No. 2 issued notice dated 18.05.2023 to Petitioners No. 1 to 5 for revocation of permission. Petitioners No. 1 to 5 appeared before Respondent No. 2 and filed written say on 20.06.2023 stating that the layout plan is sanctioned by following due procedure and the open space and road from layout is handed over to the Municipal Council. It is stated that subsequent purchasers have also obtained construction permission. Respondent No. 3 has made false complaint to extract money from the purchasers. Respondent No. 2 without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners passed order on 17.01.2024 thereby cancelling the layout plan sanctioned on 11.01.2021. In these facts, petitioners have approached this Court. 4. Heard learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners, learned Advocates for Respondents No. 2 and 3 and learned AGP for the State. Perused the record. 5. Perusal of impugned order shows that the impugned order is nothing but the replica of complaint made by Respondent No. 3. The say submitted by the petitioners on 20.06.2023 is not at all taken into {4} 920-wp-1419-2024 consideration by Respondent No. 2 while passing the impugned order. Therefore, we are of the view that, the impugned order suffers from non application of mind and is passed in violation of principles of natural justice. 6. In the result, writ petition is allowed. 7. Impugned order dated 17.01.2024 passed by Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Beed is quashed and set aside. 8. The matter is remitted back to Respondent No. 2 for consideration on merits after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the concern. (ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) Bhagyawant Punde