Quashed

Deepak Valji Karia and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Jan 2018WP/5961/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging a CIDCO notice to stop work on a plot under a 12.5% rehabilitation scheme. The court quashed the notice based on an affidavit clarifying that the land belonged to a private individual who received compensation and could legally transfer it, contradicting the Lands Department's earlier communication.

What did the court decide?

The notice issued by CIDCO on 6 May 2016 directing the respondent to stop work over the plot, and all consequential actions based upon the notice, are quashed and set aside.

Deepak Valji Karia and Ors. Vs the State of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

23-wp5961.17.sxw

¶2

ssm 1

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 5961 OF 2017

¶6

1 Deepak Valji Karia, Adult Indian Inhabitant, Occupation business, partner of M/s. Ambedeep Enterprises.

¶7

2 M/s. Ambedeep Enterprises, a registered partnership firm.

¶8

Both 1 and 2 having address at Shop No. 14/15, Giriraj Darshan Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Limited, Plot No. 6, Sector-9, Kopar Khairane, Navi Mumbai. ….Petitioners. Vs.

¶9

1 The State of Maharashtra 2 The City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited having its registered office at “Nirmal”, 2^nd Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 and having its Head Office at CIDCO Bhavan, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai-400614.

¶10

3 The Chief Land and Survey Officer, The City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited, CIDCO Bhavan, 7^th Floor, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai.

1/4

23-wp5961.17.sxw

ssm 2

4 The Senior Planner (Bldg. Permission), (Navi Mumbai & Khopta), The City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited, CIDCO Bhavan, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai.

¶15

….Respondents.

¶16

Mr. Prasad P. Pathare for the Petitioners. Mr. N.C. Walimbe, AGP for Respondent No. 1. Mr. G.S. Hegde for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

¶17

CORAM : R.M. BORDE AND

¶18

R.G. KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 8 JANUARY 2018.

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER R.M. BORDE, J.) :-

¶20

Heard.

¶21

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

¶22

2 Heard finally with the consent of the parties. The Petition

¶23

is taken up for final disposal, at admission stage itself.

¶24

3 The Petitioner, who is a developer of a plot acquired by him from one Kisan Ganpat Patil-the original owner, has objected to the notice issued by the CIDCO on 6 May 2016, directing the Petitioner to stop the work being carried out over the plot allotted under 12.5% scheme, consequent upon acquisition of lands belonging to Uran Taluka Bhiwandiwala Trust.

2/4

23-wp5961.17.sxw

ssm 3

4 It is the contention of the Petitioner that the Trust has no concern with the plot acquired by the Petitioner and in fact, it belonged to one Kisan Ganpat Patil. It is further contended that since the Trust has no concern with the plot and as Kisan Ganpat Patil is a private individual, who has been allotted the plot under the scheme, he can legally transfer the same for the purpose of development. According to the Petitioner, since the Petitioner has not acquired the property from the Trust, nor there is any record to indicate that the plot acquired by the Petitioner, in fact, belongs to the concerned Trust, the order impugned in the Petition deserves to be set aside.

¶29

5 An affidavit has been presented on behalf of the State Government, wherein it has been specifically recorded that the award declared by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, in favour of Kisan Ganpat Patil and the said claimant has received the amount of compensation. Being the beneficiary of 12.5% scheme, the CIDCO had allotted the said plot to him by way of rehabilitation benefit and that the concern Trust i.e. Uran Taluka Bhiwandiwalal Trust, has nothing to do with the ownership of the said

¶30

3/4

¶31

ssm 4 23-wp5961.17.sxw

¶32

land and as such, there is no question of cancellation of allotment of said plot.

¶33

6 In view of the affidavit presented on behalf of Tahasildar, Uran, Taluka-Uran, District Raigad, the Development Authority i.e. CIDCO has committed an error, in transmitting impugned communication. The communication issued by the Development Authority on 6 May 2016, directing the Respondent to stop the work over the plot in question, deserves to be quashed and set aside. It shall be further noted that the aforesaid notice has been issued on the basis of communication from the Lands Department i.e. State Government, informing that the plot appears to be belonging to Uran Taluka Bhiwandiwala Trust. Since the factual position has been clarified by the Tahasildar in the affidavit, the notice issued by the Development Authority i.e. CIDCO on 6 May 2016, deserves to be quashed and set aside and the same is accordingly quashed and set aside. As a result, all the consequential actions, based upon the aforesaid notice, also stand quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute, accordingly.

¶34

4/4

Deepak Valji Karia and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Valji Karia and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Narasamma Manikrao Reddy Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Another

Saraswati Navnath Jadhav and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Shri. Ramesh Khaderao Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra , through the Govt. Pleader and Ors.

Shri Sadashiv Ramayya Koli and Ors. Vs Rajendra Godhane, the Deputy Direction of Education and Ors.

Rajbir Nathilal Guderiya Vs Government of Maharashtra through Higher and Technical Education Dept. and Ors.

Ms. Hemlata Pradhan Patil and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School Education Dept and Ors.