Disposed

Nath Forge Private Limited v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC16 Dec 2014WP/2130/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition concerning allotment of an additional plot of land and challenge to the rejection of petitioner's applications. The court noted disputed questions of fact regarding construction completion and eligibility of respondent allottees, held that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing, and directed authorities to hold a hearing and decide the matter.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent nos. 2 & 3 to extend opportunity of hearing to parties and decide the matter within two months.

Nath Forge Private Limited Vs the State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

WP 2130.13 with CA 1766.14

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2130/2013
WITH CA/1766/2014 IN WP/2130/2013

¶5

NATH FORGE PRIVATE LIMITED

¶6

...PETITIONER...

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS.
...RESPONDENTS...

¶9

 .....

¶10

Shri A.V. Indrale Patil, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mrs. M.A. Deshpande, AGP for Respondent No.1.
Shri S.S. Deve, Advocate for respondent nos.2 & 3.
None for Respondent No.4.

¶11

 .....

¶12

CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
 A.M. BADAR, JJ.

¶13

DATE: 16.12.2014

¶14

ORDER :

¶15

1]Heard Shri A.V. Indrale Patil, Advocate for

¶16

Petitioner; Mrs. M.A. Deshpande, AGP for Respondent No.1
and Shri S.S. Deve, Advocate for respondent nos.2 & 3.
Nobody appears for Respondent No.4.

¶17

2]Petitioner sought allotment of adjacent plot

¶18

initially in the year 2008 by moving application dated
16.4.2008. It was rejected on the ground that petitioner
had not completed his structure on allotted plot No.L-

¶19

18/23. Petitioner thereafter moved another application

¶20

WP 2130.13 with CA 1766.14

¶21

- 2 -

¶22

on 18.12.2010. The adjacent plot then becoming available
was allotted to respondent no.4 and, therefore, present
petition came to be filed.

¶23

3]During pendency of present petition, petitioner has
been served with a communication dated 18.4.2013, which
informs him the fate of his application dated 18.12.2010.
It is this communication which has also been questioned
in present petition.

¶24

4]Advocate Shri Patil submits that earlier rejection
of the application dated 16.4.2008 was never communicated
to petitioner and document dated 16.5.2008 was never
received. He further points out that construction on

¶25

plot allotted to petitioner is complete and petitioner
has got a completion certificate. Hence, that reason was
not available in 2010 or in 2013 when application dated
18.12.2010 was allegedly rejected. He submits that in
communication dated 18.4.2013, unauthorized construction
of 53 Sq.Mtrs. in marginal space and subletting Plot
No.B-49 are the two reasons assigned for not allotting

¶26

additional plot to petitioner. Those reasons are not
being substantiated and in reply affidavit, a different
story is being pressed into service. He further contends

¶27

WP 2130.13 with CA 1766.14

¶28

- 3 -

¶29

that petitioner has not been given any opportunity of
hearing in the matter.

¶30

5]It is pointed out that both plots which became
available in vicinity of plot allotted to petitioner have
been given to respondent no.4, respondent no.4 has sublet
plot originally allotted to it and hence was not entitled
to claim additional plots.

¶31

6]Advocate Shri Deve is relying upon reply affidavit.
He submits that petitioner has misled respondent nos.2 &
3 as they have additional plot in the family. It is

¶32

further submitted that petitioner has completed
construction on 4.3.2014 when completion certificate has
been given to it. Thus, before 4.3.2014, petitioner was
not entitled to allotment of any additional plot. Our
attention is also invited to reasons recorded in impugned
communication dated 18.4.2013 at Exhibit J-4.

¶33

7]It is apparent that there are some disputed
questions of facts in the matter. The disputed facts
could have been verified only after extending opportunity

¶34

of hearing to petitioner. Petitioner has also assailed

¶35

allotment of latter plot becoming available after 2008 to
respondent no.4. This Court has in present matter on

¶36

WP 2130.13 with CA 1766.14 - 4 -

¶37

3.9.2013 directed respondent no.4 to maintain status quo in relation to its activities on said plot. On

¶38

19.8.2014, by express order, this Court has refused to
continue interim order.

¶39

8]It is in this situation that the matter is being
looked into.

¶40

9]As we have already noted above, opportunity of
hearing was not given to petitioner. The question
whether petitioner had completed construction before
18.12.2010 can be decided after hearing petitioner.

¶41

Similarly, respondent no.4 is allottee of the land which
is being claimed by petitioner. Petitioner has pointed
out that respondent no.4 has sublet the original plot
and, therefore, is not entitled to claim additional plot.
This also raises some disputed question. Respondent no.4
needs to be heard for deciding that controversy.

¶42

10]In this situation, we find it convenient to direct
respondent nos.2 & 3 to extend opportunity of hearing to
petitioner as also respondent no.4 to find out their
eligibility and entitlement to claim additional plot.
Accordingly, we direct parties to appear before
respondent no.2 on 12.1.2015. Respondent no.2 shall hear

¶43

WP 2130.13 with CA 1766.14

¶44

petitioner as also respondent no.4, peruse records and
take suitable decision in accordance with law within
further period of two months.

¶45

11]With these directions and keeping all rival
contentions open, we dispose of present petition with no
order as to costs. Pending Civil Application
No.1766/2014 is also disposed of.

¶46

ndk/ c16121421.doc

Nath Forge Private Limited v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nath Forge Private Limited v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uday Manohar Gandhewar Vs Municipal Council, Kinwat Thr Chief Officer and Ors.

Pradnya Mahendra Khillare and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Nago Pundalik Ganar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bharatsing Gulabsingh Lakhad and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ilahai Ranglal Futankar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ram Baburao Haral Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others