Allowed

Pandurang Mahadeo Harshe v. City and Industrial Development Corporation Aurangabad through Administrator

Bombay HC3 Aug 2011WP/3309/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking a direction for the issuance of a no objection certificate for an occupancy or completion certificate regarding a plot. The court held that previous court directions did not explicitly mandate denial of certificates for non-completion within one year and that the petitioner's reasons were genuine.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to issue no objection for completion/occupancy certificate within 8 weeks, with petitioner paying applicable premiums.

Pandurang Mahadeo Harshe Vs City and Industrial… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

WP 3309/11

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.3309/2011 Pandudrang Mahadeo Harshe V/s City & Industrial Development Corporation, Aurangabad, through Administrator.

¶6

|
Office Notes, Office
||_________________
| |---|---| |Memoranda of Coram,
|
appearances, Court's
||
Court's or Judge's orders
| |orders or directions
||| |and Registrar's orders
|||

¶7

Shri Vinod P. Patil, Advocate for petitioner. Shri A.S. Bajaj, Advocate for respondent.

¶8

CORAM: D.B. BHOSALE &

¶9

S.B. DESHMUKH, JJ.

¶10

Date: 03.08.2011

¶11

1] Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By

¶13

consent of learned counsel for the parties,

¶14

the petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.

¶15

2] By way of present petition, the

¶16

petitioner seeks direction to the sole respondent to grant no objection for grant of occupancy / completion certificate in respect

¶17

of Plot No.58, N-2, Survey No.90/1, Mukundwadi, Aurangabad. It is the

¶18

WP 3309/11

¶19

¶20

contention of the petitioner that though the petitioner had submitted a plan for construction within a stipulated period, the construction could not be completed within a period of one year. It is, therefore, submitted that though the petitioner applied for the grant of no objection for grant of occupancy / completion certificate, respondent authority is not granting the same.

¶21

3] Shri A.S. Bajaj, learned counsel for respondent – CIDCO authority, contends that in view of directions by this Court dated 13.4.2004 in Civil Application No.7360/2002 in Writ Petition No.2338/1999, if a person has not completed construction within a period of one year, the completion / occupancy certificate cannot be granted. 4] It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s case is covered by first list of plot holders. In paragraph 3 of the said order, the Court has directed the CIDCO to issue notice to the plot holders directing them to commence the construction within 3 months and complete

¶22

WP 3309/11

¶23

¶24

the same within one year and to do the same in accordance with rules framed by CIDCO. The said order also requires the CIDCO to state in the notice that if the plans for approval are not submitted within 4 weeks, CIDCO shall proceed to take over possession of the plots.

¶25

5] Undisputedly, the petitioner has submitted the plans within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the notice and also commenced the construction within 3 months. The only question is as to whether respondent – CIDCO can deny completion / occupancy certificate for non completion of construction within one year from the notice. According to the petitioner, he could not complete the construction within one year for the reasons stated in paragraph 5 of the writ petition. We find that the reasons given by the petitioner for non-completion of construction within the prescribed period of one year are genuine. It can also be seen that said order does not state that the

¶26

WP 3309/11

¶27

¶28

completion / occupancy certificate should not be granted if construction is not completed within one year. In any case, the respondent – CIDCO has not taken possession of the plot in question.

¶29

6] In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allow the writ petition. The respondent is directed to issue no objection for completion / occupancy certificate in accordance with law within a period of 8 weeks from today. Needless to state that the petitioner would pay and penal / additional premium to the respondent in accordance with the rules.

¶30

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.

¶31

(S.B. Deshmukh, J.) (D.B. Bhosale, J.)

¶32

Dt/- 03.08.2011 ndk/c381119

Pandurang Mahadeo Harshe v. City and Industrial Development Corporation Aurangabad through Administrator

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandurang Mahadeo Harshe v. City and Industrial Development Corporation Aurangabad through Administrator

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arun Keshavrao Sawant Vs State of Maha and Ors.

Chandrakant Kishanrao Rudrawar Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Shivdas Sambhaji Dhavale Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Karnaveer Sheshrao Totwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Gulchhanda Ramrao Bhosle Alias Chandrakala Balaji Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Khumansing Hilal Patil Vs the State of Mah and Ors.