Disposed

Bhausaheb Jaywantrao Sonawane and Another v. City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra

Bombay HC7 May 2014WP/2561/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking regularization of plot allotment and issuance of a lease deed. Petitioners faced opposition due to alleged breach of development conditions and prior court directions. The Court granted leave to apply for amalgamation and directed the authority to consider further regularization requests.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to tender an application for amalgamation; authorities directed to consider requests for No Objection Certificate and lease deed execution positively.

Bhausaheb Jaywantrao Sonawane and Another Vs City and… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

WP 2561/14

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

 WRIT PETITION NO.2561/2014

¶6

1] Shri Bhausaheb Jaywantrao Sonawane, age 62 yrs., occu.Advocate, r/o Plot No.355 and 356, N-3, CIDCO, Aurangabad, Dist.Aurangabad.

¶7

2]Shri Manoj Sahebrao Sonawane,
age 38 yrs., occu.service,
r/o Mathura Niwas, Kotwalpura,
Aurangabad Dist.Aurangabad.
At present 512, Ablon-drive,
Acton MAO1720, USA, America,
through Power of Attorney Holder,
petitioner no.1.

¶8

...Petitioners..

¶9

Versus

¶10

City and Industrial Development
Corporation of Maharashtra,
Through its Administrator,
Udyog Bhavan, New Aurangabad.
...Respondents...

¶11

 .....

¶12

Shri Anand P. Bhandari, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Anil S. Bajaj, Advocate for respondent.

¶13

 .....

¶14

CORAM: R.M. BORDE &

¶15

 A.M. BADAR, JJ.

¶16

DATE: 07.05.2014

¶17

ORDER :

¶18

1]The petitioners are praying for issuance of

¶19

WP 2561/14

¶20

- 2 -

¶21

directions to the CIDCO authorities to grant no objection
certificate to the petitioners for raising construction
over plots bearing Nos.355 and 356 situated at N-3,
CIDCO, Aurangabad. A prayer is also made for issuance of
directions to CIDCO authorities to regularize the
allotment of plot Nos.355 and 356. The petitioners also
pray for issuance of directions to respondent to execute
a registered lease-deed in respect of above-noted plots.
2]According to petitioners, on 25.3.1981, an agreement
of lease has been executed in favour of petitioner no.1
in respect of Plot No.355 and in favour of father of
petitioner no.2 in respect of Plot No.356. On
consideration of applications tendered by respective
parties, part occupancy certificate on confirming that
condition in respect of raising of construction over the
plot is fulfilled, was issued by the CIDCO authorities on

¶22

21.2.1997. According to petitioners, they have made
construction to the extent of 50% of the total area of
both the plots. It is stated that in the year 2008,
father of petitioner no.2 expired and thereafter
petitioner no.2 tendered an application for issuance of
letter of administration, which was granted in his favour

¶23

WP 2561/14

¶24

- 3 -

¶25

in the year 2013. Both the petitioners on 14.3.2013

¶26

tendered a request to the respondent to execute the
lease-deed in respect of the plots and issue no objection

¶27

certificate for raising further construction. The
request made by the petitioners has not been considered

¶28

and in view of communication dated 2.12.2013, the

¶29

petitioners have been directed to approach this Court and
seek necessary directions in respect of de-amalgamation
and regularization of the plots. It is noted in the
communication that so far as Plot No.355 is concerned,

¶30

the plot holder has failed to develop the plot within th
stipulated period. An information has been furnished to
the High Court in Writ Petition No.2338/1999 that the

¶31

said plot is vacant and the lease holder has not
developed the property. It is contended that in view of

¶32

the directions issued by the High Court in Civil
Application No.7360/2002 in Writ Petition No.2338/1999,

¶33

no request for amalgamation can be entertained by the
CIDCO without the leave of the Court. It is contended

¶34

that the plot holder has breached the conditions
mentioned in the allotment letter and has not complied
with the provisions made in the agreement to lease and

¶35

WP 2561/14

¶36

- 4 -

¶37

also breached the orders of the High Court. It is as

¶38

such directed to the petitioners to approach the High
Court and seek leave for de-amalgamation and
regularization of the said plots.

¶39

3]The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
there is already amalgamation of the plots and the part

¶40

occupancy certificate issued on 21.2.1997 itself
indicates that the authorities have treated both the
plots having been amalgamated. The learned counsel for
the CIDCO authorities, however, contends that a formal

¶41

permission for amalgamation of the plots would be
essential. It is also to be taken note of that due to
demise of father of petitioner no.2, he could not develop
the property and four years time was spent in securing
letter of administration from the civil Court. After
issuance of letter of administration, they approached the
CIDCO authorities and tendered a request for issuance of
no objection certificate. The delay that has been caused
is not intentional but due to the circumstances beyond
the control of the petitioners as stated above.

¶42

4]In this view of the matter, considering the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case, leave is granted to

¶43

WP 2561/14

¶44

- 5 -

¶45

the petitioners to tender an application for amalgamation

¶46

of the plots. The petitioners may complete the required
formalities within a period of six weeks from today and

¶47

on receipt of application and on observance of the
procedure by the petitioners prescribed in that behalf,
the CIDCO authorities shall take appropriate decision in
the matter within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of application / proposal. The CIDCO authorities
also thereupon shall consider the request of the
petitioners for grant of no objection for raising further
construction and for execution of lease-deed in their
favour positively. It would be open for the petitioners
to make suitable request to the CIDCO authorities for
transfer of plot in the name of the petitioner no.2.

¶48

5]With the directions as above, writ petition stands
disposed of.

¶49

ndk/c751414

Bhausaheb Jaywantrao Sonawane and Another v. City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhausaheb Jaywantrao Sonawane and Another v. City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra

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

Dinkar Madhavrao Deore and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rangnath Shivram Gondkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Murlidhar Eknath Rishipathak Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanjay Sudhakar Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Enki Glass Industry Pvt.Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bharat Ramesh Galani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others