Allowed

Seema Bhupendrasingh Patiyal and Anr. v. the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, and Anr.

Bombay HC1 Mar 2012WP/1748/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition concerning MIDC's inaction in allotting a land plot. Petitioners withdrew the petition with liberty to seek representation. Court directed authorities to decide the representation within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted liberty to make representation; authorities directed to decide within six weeks.

Seema Bhupendrasingh Patiyal and Anr. Vs the Maharashtra… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

3.wp-1748-11.doc

¶2

jdk

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1748 OF 2011

¶5

Smt. Seema Bhupendrasingh Patiyal and Anr.

¶6

..Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and Ors.

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

Mr. V.R. Sutarale for Petitioners

¶11

Mr. P.P. Chavan i/b Navdeep Vora & Co. for Respondent No.1

¶12

Mr. S.R. Nargolkar AGP for Respondent No.2

¶13

CORAM : D.D.SINHA AND SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J J.

¶14

DATE : MARCH 01, 2012.

¶15

P.C.:

¶16

1. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and learned AGP for the Respondent No.2.

¶17

2. The grievance of the Petitioners is in respect of inaction on the part of the M.I.D.C. authorities to allot the plot of land admeasuring 600 sq. mtrs. situated at TTC Industrial Area,

¶18

1 of 3

¶19

3.wp-1748-11.doc

¶20

Rabale. The counsel for the Petitioners states that vide communication dated 21.9.2004, husband of the Petitioner no.1 was directed to pay 50% of the total amount to be paid by the Petitioners to M.I.D.C. in respect of the plot in question which comes to Rs. 6,30,000/- within the stipulated period. The learned counsel for the Petitioners states that in view of unavoidable circumstances, the said amount could not be paid within the stipulated period and there was a delay of 31 days in making the said payment. It is submitted that since there was delay in making the payment of first installment, the Respondent No.1 did not issue the order of allotment and therefore, the Petitioners filed the present Writ Petition.

¶21

3. It is, in these circumstances, the learned counsel for the Petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the present Writ Petition with liberty to make representation to the Regional Officer, M.I.D.C. for redressal of their grievance within two weeks and prayed that directions be given to the authorities to decide the same within the stipulated period.

¶22

4. On the backdrop of the above referred fact, we dispose of the Writ Petition as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for by the Petitioners. If the representation is made by the Petitioners within a stipulated period to the Regional Officer, M.I.D.C., we direct the said authority to decide the

¶23

2 of 3

¶24

3.wp-1748-11.doc

¶25

same in accordance with law and procedure applicable within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of such representation.

¶26

[ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [ D.D.SINHA, J. ]

¶27

kandarkar

¶28

3 of 3

Seema Bhupendrasingh Patiyal and Anr. v. the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seema Bhupendrasingh Patiyal and Anr. v. the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hanmant Dnyanu Thorat and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra, Dept of Industry, Energy and Labour and Ors.

Shri. Milind Shripad Date Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Smt. Nandini Ajay Marathe Vs Union of India, through Ministry of Environment and Forest and Ors.

Shri. Prakash Shivajirao Shendage and Ors. Vs the Maharashtra State Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Kapstone Constructions Private Limited Vs State of Maharashtra, through Revenue and Forest Dept

Shri. Prakash Shivajirao Shendage and Ors. Vs the Maharashtra State Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and Ors.