Allowed

Pramod Pandurang Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC4 Jul 2016WP/5595/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought allotment of a tenement under a Higher Income Group scheme. Due to disputes over the original land, the site was changed and the cost increased. Upon establishing consensus between the petitioner and respondents to proceed with the increased cost, the court ordered payment of the balance amount for immediate possession.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to pay Rs. 15,77,420 within four weeks. Respondents directed to hand over possession of the tenement immediately upon receipt of payment.

Pramod Pandurang Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 WP5595.13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 5595 OF 2013

¶4

Pramod S/o. Pandurang Patil, Age : 55 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o. : 304, Dharmasita Park, ‘A’ Bldg., Opp. Gangeshwar Tower, Raju Nagar, Dombivli (West), Tq. : Kalyan, Dist. : Thane .. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, Mantralay, Mumbai

¶7

The Chief Engineer / Officer, MHADA, Nashik Housing Area Development Authority, Ram Ganesh Gadkari Chowk, Near Income Tax office, Old Agra Road, Nashik, Tq. and Dist. : Nashik

¶8

The Executive Engineer / Officer, MHADA, Nashik Housing Area Development Authority, Divisional Office, Old Collectorate Office premises, Behind Kamlabai Girl’s School, Sakri Road, Dhule, Tq. and Dist. : Dhule

¶9

The Dy. Engineer / Authorized Officer, Nashik Housing Area Development Authority, MAHADA, Sub Divisional Office, MAHADA Colony, Near Railway Gate, Jalgaon, Tq. and Dist. : Jalgaon .. Respondents

¶10

.. Respondents

¶11

Shri Amol Chalak h/f Shri S. B. Talekar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri B. V. Virdhe, A. G. P. for Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 served. Smt. Renuka Ghule Palve, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

¶12

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND K. K. SONAWANE, JJ. DATE : 04TH JULY, 2016.

¶13

2 WP5595.13

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT ( Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J. ) :-

¶15

Rule.

¶16

Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing.

¶17

Pursuant to the advertisement dated 19.01.2003 in Daily Lokmat inviting applications for Higher Income Group (H. I. G.) Scheme on Survey No. 199/2 at Bhusawal regarding allotment of tenement, the Petitioner applied alongwith demand draft of Rs. 46,000/-. The Petitioner is not allotted the tenement as such has filed the present petition.

¶18

Mr. Chalak, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Respondents were expected to complete the scheme within 12 to 18 months from the date of advertisement. In March, 2005 the Respondent No. 3 expressed its inability to execute the scheme due to unavoidable reasons on the said Survey No. 199/2, however invited consent for other tenements to be constructed on Survey No. 299/1 and 2 and 300/1 at Bhusawal. In order to avoid cancellation Petitioner gave his consent. The learned counsel submits that, upon enquiry it revealed that land Survey No. 199/2 was under reservation and dispute. Thereafter, vide letter dated 26.04.2006 the Respondent No. 4 informed that the cost of premises has now increased to Rs.7,74,610/- with further rider that it may increase in future. In order to avoid cancellation Petitioner gave his consent. The Petitioner was informed by the Respondent No. 4 vide letter dated 22.01.2007 that the Petitioner is selected in the draw. The learned counsel submits that, thereafter, the Respondent demanded additional amount of Rs. 54,000/- and also vide another letter asked for the revised amount of Rs.9,35,000/-. The Respondent kept on demanding the increased amount however did not complete the work

¶19

3 WP5595.13

¶20

as per the advertisement. The Petitioner filed a complaint before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum which came to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The appeal also met the same fate. Thereafter, on 25^th September, 2012 the Respondent No. 2 informed the Petitioner that the application is rejected and further amount of Rs. 8,960/- is deducted from the deposited amount and asked the Petitioner to take refund of the remaining amount.

¶21

The learned counsel submits that, the Petitioner had applied pursuant to the advertisement. The Respondents were bound by the terms and conditions of the advertisement and they could not have unilaterally changed the site and increased the cost. According to the learned counsel, even the Petitioner had given consent for the enhanced amount still the Respondent did not adhere to their obligation. The Petitioner is entitled to the possession of the tenement as per the advertisement. The Petitioner was and is ready and willing to perform his part of the obligation.

¶22

Mrs. Palve, the learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submits that time to time the Petitioner was intimated about the status of the land and the tenement as there was some dispute with the original land. The site was changed. Because of the delay, the cost increased and the Petitioner is bound to pay the increased cost. The terms and conditions are explicitly clear in this regard. The learned counsel submits that the Petitioner does not have any vested right to claim the tenement.

¶23

When the matter was being argued we had asked the learned counsel for the Respondents as to whether the tenement is vacant. Upon instructions the learned counsel submits that one tenement is kept vacant which was meant for the Petitioner. The learned counsel further informs that the cost of the said tenement now is Rs. 16,23,420/- and if, the Petitioner is ready to pay the said amount the

¶24

4 WP5595.13

¶25

Respondents would allot the said tenement to the Petitioner.

¶26

Mr. Chalak, the learned counsel for the Petitioner on instructions from the Petitioner states that the Petitioner is ready to pay the said amount of Rs. 16,23,420/- after adjusting deposited amount of Rs.46,000/- however the possession shall be given as stated in the advertisement.

¶27

As now both the parties have shown their willingness it is not necessary to go into the merits of the contentions of the respective counsels. Considering the consensus of the parties we pass the following order -

¶28

A] The Petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs. 16,23,420/- minus Rs. 46,000/- already paid to the Respondents within four (4) weeks from today.

¶29

B] On receipt of the said amount the Respondents shall hand over possession of the tenement to the Petitioner in the Higher Income Group (H. I. G.) as per the advertisement immediately on receipt of the said payment.

¶30

Rule is accordingly made partly absolute. No costs.

¶31

[ K. K. SONAWANE, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶32

sam/July.16

Pramod Pandurang Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Pandurang Patil 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

Sandip Vijay Kulkarni and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mohan Bhanudas Mhase Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Sayya Siraj Sayyad Ali Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Balasaheb Pandurang Adhav Vs State of Maharashtra and Another

Prasanna S Mishrikotkar Vs Union of India and Others

Dwarakadas Babulal Agrawal Vs State of Maharashtra and Others