JUDGMENT/ORDER Y.G.KHOBRAGADE, J. - Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, heard finally at the stage of admission by consent of the parties. 3. The challenge in the present petition is to the order/communication dtd. 30/9/2022 issued by respondent 2- Building Engineer (West), Nagpur Improvement Trust (for short, 'NIT'), whereby the respondents did not accord sanction to the residential house construction plan because of the operation of prohibitory order in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) 40/2013 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 4. The facts of the present case lie in narrow compass. One Mr. Dashrath Balaji Kalambe had purchased the plot in question under Sale Deed dtd. 19/7/1991 from Paradise Co-operative Housing Society, Nagpur and subsequently the petitioners purchased the said plot No. 45, admeasuring 2000 sq. feets bearing Khasara Nos. 14, 16, 17/1, 18/1, 19/1.k, 19/2/d, 20/1?k, 20/1p and 20/1N, P. H. No. 44 of Mouza- Sonegaon, City Survey No. 11 and Sheet No. 300 situated near Lake, Sahakar Nagar, Sonegaon, Nagpur bearing Corporation House No. 3869/45 and Ward No. 75 within the limits of Nagpur Improvement Trust, Nagpur/NMRDA and Nagpur Municipal Corporation. 5. Accordingly, their names were mutated in the revenue record. On or about 30/4/2001, the Maharashtra Gunthewari Developments (Regulation, Upgradation and Control) Act, 2001 (for short, "Gunthewari Act") came into force. Ss. 3 and 4 of the Gunthewari Act provide regularization and development of plots. The said scheme was existing as on 1/1/2001. Accordingly, the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners submitted an application for regularization of plot in question under the said Act and respondentNagpur Improvement Trust (NIT) by communication dtd. 15/1/2005 and 16/6/2005 raised demand against the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners for regularization of the said plot. Upon compliance of all the requirements, on 9/6/2008 the respondent-NIT regularized the plot in question. Thereafter, on 6/5/2022, the petitioners purchased the plots in question from their predecessor-in-title and thereafter they submitted house construction plan for development with respondent authority on 20/7/2022, as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966. Subsequently, vide communication dtd. 8/8/2022, the petitioners were called upon to meet certain compliance and also secured no-objection certificate and clearance certificate from the Competent Authority. However, on 30/9/2022, respondent 2 issued the impugned communication and declined to sanction the development plan on the ground of operation of the interim order in PIL 40/2013. 6. Subsequently, vide communication dtd. 8/8/2022, the petitioners were called upon to meet certain compliance and also secured no-objection certificate and clearance certificate from the Competent Authority. However, on 30/9/2022, respondent 2 issued the impugned communication and declined to sanction the development plan on the ground of operation of the interim order in PIL 40/2013. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners canvassed that the plot 45 situated in Paradise Co-operative Housing Society does not fall within the scope of the PIL because the plots in question is not situated in a mandatory open space of the Society, so also the petitioners are not intending to get regularized any unauthorized construction standing on land and it is also not reserved under the development plan for open space, garden or play-ground. Therefore, the order dtd. 21/1/2015 passed in PIL 40/2013 is not applicable to the facts and circumstance of the case. However, respondent 2 by the impugned order/communication dtd. 30/9/2022 declined to sanction the development plan therefore, the impugned order/communication is not sustainable in the eye of law and prayed for quashing the same. 7. The respondent Development Authority filed affidavit in response and resisted the claim of the petitioners. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently canvassed that PIL 40/2013 is pending before this Court and looking to the controversy involved in the said case and in pursuance of the interim order dtd. 21/1/2015 passed therein, even sanction of plot of single family dwelling unit cannot be considered. Therefore, respondent 2 passed the impugned order and refused to accord sanction to the construction plan of the petitioners. 8. It is needless to mention here that respondent 2 passed the impugned order dtd. 30/9/2022 and refused to grant sanction to the construction plan of house of the petitioners only on the ground of existence of the interim order dtd. 21/1/2015 passed in PIL 40/2013. Therefore, it would be just and proper to reproduce the said order, which reads thus:- < WXY>"The order dtd. 7/5/2014 is modified as under: "By way of interim relief, we direct that until further orders are passed in the matter, the respondents shall not regularize any unauthorized constructions on the lands which are reserved in the Development Plan for playgrounds or open space. Stand over to 4/2/2015"</ WXY> 9. 7/5/2014 is modified as under: "By way of interim relief, we direct that until further orders are passed in the matter, the respondents shall not regularize any unauthorized constructions on the lands which are reserved in the Development Plan for playgrounds or open space. Stand over to 4/2/2015"</ WXY> 9. On plain reading of the interim order, it is seen that respondent-NIT is restrained from regularizing any unauthorized construction on the lands which are reserved under the development plan for play-ground and open space. It is not the case of the respondents that the plot in question is situated on mandatory open space or reserved for play-ground under the development plan. No doubt, the respondents contended that the plots in question was shown earlier under the reservation of garden (SW 138A) however, the said reservation has been cancelled/deleted on 19/4/2005 and the said fact is duly admitted by the respondents. Further, the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners purchased the plot in question under Sale Deed dtd. 19/4/1991 from the Housing Society and duly regularized the said plot under the provisions of Ss. 3 and 4 of the Gunthewari Act. Thereafter, the petitioners purchased the said plots on 6/5/2022 under registered Sale Deed from their predecessor-in-title. The record speaks that the respondents also issued demand notice dtd. 15/1/2005 against Mr. Dashrath Balaji Kalambe, the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners, for development charges which has been duly deposited with the respondent- NIT. The respondents have not denied deposit of required development charges. Since, the plot in question does not fall within the ambit of reservation for play-ground or open space in the layout development plan therefore, there is no bar to the respondents to accord sanction to construction plan on the plot in question. Nonetheless, on 10/7/2019, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed an order in PIL 88/2018, which reads as under:- < WXY>"The clarification is sought in respect of the order dtd. 6/2/2019. It is urged that the Nagpur Improvement Trust has already regularized certain plots by invoking its power under the Maharashtra Guthewari (Regularization, Upgradation and Control) Act. We make it clear that if regularization is in accordance with the provisions of the said Act, the order dtd. 6/2/2019 shall not come in the way of the parties. 6/2/2019. It is urged that the Nagpur Improvement Trust has already regularized certain plots by invoking its power under the Maharashtra Guthewari (Regularization, Upgradation and Control) Act. We make it clear that if regularization is in accordance with the provisions of the said Act, the order dtd. 6/2/2019 shall not come in the way of the parties. So far as the question of regularization under the Gunthewari Act is concerned, if that is challenged, it can be separately considered."</ WXY> 10. Since the plot in question is already been regularized by the respondents Development Authority under the Gunthewari Act therefore, respondents ought to have granted the sanction to construction plan of the petitioners. Therefore, the impugned order dtd. 30/9/2022 passed by respondent 2 appears to be illogical and misconceived, hence it is liable to be quashed and set aside. 11. In view of the above discussion, we are inclined to allow the present petition and proceed to pass the following order:- < WXY>i) The Writ Petition is hereby allowed in terms of prayer clause (i), which reads thus:- "i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction and to quash and set aside the order/communication dtd. 30/09/2022 (ANNEXURE-"J") issued by Building Engineer (WEST), Nagpur Improvement Trust i.e. Respondent No. 2 and direct the respondents to consider and grant the building permit in favour of the petitioners in accordance with law;" ii) Rule is made absolute in the above term. No costs.</ WXY>