JUDGMENT 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution primarily raises a dispute in regard to the rights in regard to the land bearing CTS no.2776/B, 2776/D, village Dahisar in Mumbai (for short 'the said land') on the basis of entries as made in the revenue records. On such plea the petitioners interalia assail the development of the said land being undertaken by respondent no.4-Vaishali Nagar Co-operative Housing Society (for short 'the said society), by appointing developers M/s. Arkade Associates (respondent no.5). 2. Petitioners claim to be the successors-in-title and interest of one Louis Francis Misquita - owner who expired on 14 March 1971 ('the deceased'). They contend that the name of the deceased was entered in the record of rights pursuant to an order dated 24 November 1962 passed in the revenue proceedings being RTS WS 1519. It is contended that accordingly a mutation entry No.2974 was made in favour of the deceased in regard to the said land. The petitioners contend that also proceedings were initiated under the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act,1948, in which an order was passed on 8 July 1970, by the Tahsildar, to the effect that the deceased was confirmed as the owner in respect of 16 different properties including the land in question. On the death of the deceased-Louis Francis Misquita, the name of his wife Marceline Louis Misquita was entered in the record of rights under mutation entry no.6328. However, for some reasons, name of the daughter of the deceased Lalitha Goretti was not entered. The petitioners state that Marceline Louis Misquita - wife of the deceased also expired at Bombay on 16 July 1988 leaving behind her daughter Lalitha Goretti, as her only legal heir and representative. Lalitha married petitioner no.1 in the year 1979 and petitioner nos.2 to 4 are all children of petitioner no.1 and Lalitha. Lalitha too expired on 9 February 2015 hence the petitioners are the only legal heirs and representatives of Lalitha and have also obtained Letters of Administration by filing Testamentary Petition no.3051 of 2018, as granted by this Court by an order dated 10 July 2019. The petitioners are accordingly claiming rights in respect of the said land which they say devolved upon Lalitha, which are being espoused in the present petition. 3. The petitioners are accordingly claiming rights in respect of the said land which they say devolved upon Lalitha, which are being espoused in the present petition. 3. The cause of action for the petitioners to file the present petition is in pursuance of the knowledge the petitioners received some time in August 2020 that respondent no.4- Vaishali Nagar Co-operative Housing Society has obtained a construction commencement certificate, under a proposal bearing No.CHE/7155/BP (WS)/AR on 26 November 2015 in respect of the said land, for construction of building no. 11 which is not of the ownership of respondent no.4-Society, but of Lalitha's ownership. The petitioners thereafter undertook search and obtained documents from the Municipal Corporation, and have come to know that respondent no.4 had put up a proposal for sanction with the municipal corporation on 4 May 1987 claiming to be the owners of the property being CTS no.2776. They contend that it is revealed from the documents of the said application that a statement was made in the said proposal that Marceline wife of Louis Misquita was the individual owner of the said land, as also it was also claimed that an exemption under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act was also obtained on 11 August 1979, in the name of Marceline Louis Misquita. It is thus contended that there is nothing to show that respondent no.4 is the owner of the land bearing CTS no.2776. It is thus contended that there is nothing to show that respondent no.4 is the owner of the land bearing CTS no.2776. It is on such premise claiming rights in respect of these lands, the petitioners have approached this Court by making following substantive prayers:- "(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby calling for the record of Respondent No.1 while granting sanction to property bearing, CTS No.2776B and 2776D, Village Dahisar, Dahisar (East), Bombay for proposed Building No. 11 under proposal bearing No. CHE/7155/BP(WS)/AR as per Commencement Certificate dated 11.03.2020 being EXHIBIT "J" herein and after going through the legality thereof, be pleased to quash and set aside the sanction so granted; (b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing Respondent No.4 to immediately stop all further construction activities pertaining to the property bearing CTS No.2776B and 2776D, Village Dahisar, Dahisar (East), Bombay for proposed Building No. 11 under proposal bearing No. CHE/7155/BP (WS)/AR as per Commencement Certificate dated 11.03.2020 being EXHIBIT "J" herein; (c) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant permanent order and injunction against the Respondents thereby stopping all further construction activities in respect of the construction going on property bearing, CTS No. 2776B and 2776D, Village Dahisar, Dahisar (East), Bombay for proposed Building No. 11 under proposal bearing No.CHE/7155/BP (WS)/AR as per Commencement Certificate dated 11.03.2020 bearing EXHIBIT "J" herein; (d) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant permanent order and injunction against the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 restraining them from dealing with, disposing off, creating third party interests or selling or transferring any units, flats or premises to be constructed on property bearing, CTS No. 2776B and 2776D, Village Dahisar, Dahisar (East), Bombay for proposed Building No. 11 under proposal bearing No. CHE/7155/BP (WS)/AR as per Commencement Certificate dated 11.03.2020 being EXHIBIT "J" herein." 4. Mr. Naphade, learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners intend to make out a case against grant of any development permission in favour of respondent no.4-Society on the basis of the very documents submitted with the Corporation in obtaining such permission. Mr. Naphade, learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners intend to make out a case against grant of any development permission in favour of respondent no.4-Society on the basis of the very documents submitted with the Corporation in obtaining such permission. He submits that the Corporation ought to have verified the documents of ownership before granting any permission in favour of respondent no.4. It is his contention that the act of granting development permission by the corporation on the basis of such documents which would not go to show the ownership of respondent no.4, in respect of the land in question, could not have been overlooked by the Municipal Corporation. It is thus contended that the commencement certificate dated 11 March 2020 could not have been issued by the municipal corporation in favour of respondent no.4. Mr. Nap hade, however, in fairness would point out that the petitioners have categorically averred in paragraph 5 of the petition that the petitioners have already filed Suit no.45 of 2020 in this Court asserting their very rights in respect of these lands against respondent no.4 and the municipal corporation. The averments as made in paragraph 5 read thus:- "5. The petitioners state that the petitioners are claiming various rights in respect of various properties including the suit property and have already filed Suit No.45 of 2020 in this Hon'ble Court against the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the said suit is pending for hearing and final disposal." 5. A copy of the petitioners plaint has been annexed to the reply affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.3-Vijay Krishnaji Sawant who also claims certain rights in respect of the said land. The petitioners prayers as made in the plaint are required to be noted which read thus:- (a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the defendant nos. 1 and 2 and their servants, agents or any person/s claiming through or under them in any manner have no right, title or interest in respect of the suit property bearing CTS No. 2776B and 2776D at Vaishali Nagar, Village Dahisar, Taluka Borivali, in R-North Ward, Dahisar, Bombay - 400 068 being Exhibit-B hereto; (b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased further to declare that defendant nos. 1 and 2 and their servants, agents or any person/s claiming through or under them in any manner have no right in the suit property and therefore cannot develop the suit property bearing CTS No. 2776B and 2776D at Vaishali Nagar, Village Dahisar, Taluka Borivali, in R-North Ward, Dahisar, Bombay - 400 068 being Exhibit-B hereto. (c) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass a permanent order and injunction thereby restraining the defendant nos. 1 and 2 and their servants, agents or any person/s claiming through or under them in any manner carrying on any kind of further development activity of any nature whatsoever on the suit property bearing CTS No.2776B and 2776D at Vaishali Nagar, Village Dahisar, Taluka Borivali, in R-North Ward, Dahisar, Bombay -400 068 being Exhibit-B hereto. (d) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass a temporary order and injunction thereby restraining the defendant nos. 1 and 2 and their servants, agents or any person/s claiming through or under them in any manner carrying on any kind of further development activity of any nature whatsoever on the suit property bearing CTS No. 2776B and 2776D at Vaishali Nagar, Village Dahisar, Taluka Borivali, in R-North Ward, Dahisar, Bombay -400 068 being Exhibit-B hereto. (e) Ad-interim and interim reliefs in terms of prayer (d) above.; (f) Costs of the suit be provided for; (g) Such other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require be granted." 6. Respondent no.3 in the reply affidavit has contended that the petitioners are seeking identical reliefs in the present petition as prayed by them in Suit No.45 of 2020. It is hence submitted that as the petitioners have already taken recourse to a remedy of a suit, the present petition ought not to be entertained on the same cause of action. Respondent no.3 has also contested the petition on merit. 7. Having heard Mr. Naphade, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Pallavi Thakar learned Counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2, i.e., the Corporation and Mr. Nishant Sasidharan, learned Counsel for respondent no.5, in our opinion, the petitioners are clearly asserting rights in respect of the land in question and in so asserting have already approached this Court by filing Suit No.45 of 2020, praying for reliefs in respect of these very lands. Nishant Sasidharan, learned Counsel for respondent no.5, in our opinion, the petitioners are clearly asserting rights in respect of the land in question and in so asserting have already approached this Court by filing Suit No.45 of 2020, praying for reliefs in respect of these very lands. It needs to be noted that even the municipal corporation is impleaded as a defendant in the said suit alongwith respondent no.3- Vijay Krishnaji Sawant and respondent no.4-Society. It appears to us that the issues as raised in the petition are certainly issues not different from what the petitioners have raised in the suit. In case the petitioners intend to assert that the commencement certificate issued by the municipal corporation in favour of respondent nos.3 and 4 is illegal, certainly the petitioners can assert such contention in the pending suit. There is no impediment for the petitioners to assert such contentions as urged in this petition in the pending suit. In any event these issues can be more effectively gone into in the suit proceedings. 8. For the above reasons, we are not inclined to entertain the present petition. We, however, dispose of the petition permitting the petitioners to agitate all their contentions as urged in the present petition, in the pending suit. Needless to observe that the contentions of all the parties are expressly kept open. 9. Disposed of. No costs.