Disposed¶24

Sonadevi Adhyaprasad Maurya and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra through Gp and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Jan 2025WP/19376/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Art. 226 writ petition withdrawn; challenge to CIDCO letter dated 11.12.2024 (ref CIDCO/VASAHAT/SATYO/ULWE/261/2024/5386) regarding Plot No.279, Sector 19, Village Ulwe and stay of execution of tripartite agreement; liberty granted to apply in pending execution proceedings of Special Civil Suit No.79 of 2019 before Civil Judge Senior Division, Panvel; ad-interim order dated 24.12.2024 extended four weeks; all contentions kept open; no adjudication on merits; disposed of with no costs.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to move an application in the pending execution proceedings; ad-interim order dated 24 December 2024 extended for four weeks; no costs. ¶24

Sonadevi Adhyaprasad Maurya and Ors. vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the letter dated 11.12.2024 issued by Respondent No.3 (CIDCO) should be quashed and further proceedings for execution of the tripartite agreement in respect of Plot No.279, Sector 19, Village Ulwe should be stayed till disposal of Special Civil Suit No.79 of 2019 (issue raised in the petition; not adjudicated as the petition was withdrawn).

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is allowed to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to move an application in the pending execution proceedings arising out of Special Civil Suit No. 79 of 2019.

¶21

Key takeaways

All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.ratio¶22
The ad-interim order dated 24 December 2024 is extended for a period of four weeks merely to enable the petitioner to approach the executing court; such extension is no reflection of this Court on the merits of the rival contentions, which remain open in the pending proceedings.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (G. S. Kulkarni & Advait M. Sethna, JJ.), 25 March 2025 - Writ Petition No. 19376 of 2024 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by Sonadevi Adhyaprasad Maurya & Ors. against the State of Maharashtra & Ors., seeking quashing of a letter dated 11.12.2024 (ref no. CIDCO/VASAHAT/SATYO/ULWE/261/2024/5386) issued by Respondent No.3, Manager City Services-2, Colony Division, CIDCO, and a stay of execution of the tripartite agreement in respect of Plot No.279, Sector 19, admeasuring 499.83 sq. mtrs., Village Ulwe, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad, till disposal of Special Civil Suit No.79 of 2019 pending before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Panvel. Since execution proceedings arising out of the orders in that suit were pending, the Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the petition with liberty to move an application in the execution proceedings; all contentions of the parties were expressly kept open; the ad-interim order dated 24 December 2024 was extended for four weeks solely to enable the petitioner to approach the executing court, expressly without any reflection on the merits. Disposed of, no costs.

¶1

2-WP-19376-2024 (C).doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 19376 OF 2024

¶4

Sonadevi Adhyaprasad Maurya And Ors ...Petitioners Versus The State Of Maharashtra Through Gp And Ors ...Respondents

¶5

Adv. Suresh M. Sabrad, Amey Sawant, Neha Parte, Gracy Saldana, Pratik Sabrad, for the Petitioners.

¶6

Mr. D.a. Athavale, for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

¶7

Adv. Tejesh Dande a/w Aniket Shitole and Trushna Shah, for the Respondent nos. 4 and 5.

¶8

Ms. P.J. Gavhane, AGP for Respondent no. 1- State.

¶9

Mr. Sanjeev P. Kadam, Senior Advocate i/b Prashant P. Raul a/w Adv. Mayur G. Sanap, for the Respondent No.6.

¶10

CORAM : G. S. KULKARNI & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.

¶11

DATE : 25 MARCH 2025

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following substantive relief:-

¶14

“a) rule be issued, records and proceedings be called for;

¶15

b) that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the letter dated 11.12.2024 bearing ref no. CIDCO/VASAHAT/SATYO/ULWE/261/2024/5386 issued by Respondent No.3 the Manager City Services-2, Colony Division, CIDCO to Petitioner and Respondent Nos.4 and 5 and stay all further proceedings of execution of tripartite agreement in respect of Plot No.279, Sector 19, admeasuring 499.83 sq. mtrs., situated at Village Ulwe, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad till the disposal of Special Civil Suit No.79 of 2019 filed by Petitioner pending before the Ld. Civil Judge Senior Division, Panvel;

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

Mayur Adane, PA

¶18

2-WP-19376-2024 (C).doc

¶19

c) Or in the alternative this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to hear the Petitioners, Respondent Nos.4 and 5 as well as the Respondent No.6 and thereafter take decision of allotment of Plot No.279, Sector 19, admeasuring 499.83 sq. mtrs., situated at Village Ulwe, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad;”

¶20

Having noted the prayer, as the execution proceedings as arising out of the orders passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division in Special Civil Suit No. 79 of 2019 are pending, Mr. Sabrad, learned counsel for the petitioner and rightly so seeks leave to withdraw this petition with liberty to move an application in the execution proceedings.

¶21

We accordingly allow the petitioner to withdraw the petition with liberty as prayed for.

¶22

All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.

¶23

At this stage, Mr. Sabrad, requests that the ad-interim protection which was granted by this court on 27 and 24 December 2024 be continued for a period of four weeks to enable the petitioner to move an appropriate application in the execution proceedings. We accept the request of Mr. Sabrad and merely for the petitioner to enable to approach the executing court, we extend the adinterim order dated 24 December 2024 for a period of four weeks. However such extension is no reflection of this Court on the merits of the rival contentions which are expressly kept open to be urged in the pending proceedings.

¶24

Disposed of. No costs.

¶25

[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [G. S. KULKARNI, J.]

¶26

Page 2 of 2

¶27

Mayur Adane, PA

Sonadevi Adhyaprasad Maurya and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra through Gp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonadevi Adhyaprasad Maurya and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra through Gp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Tulsabai Namdeo Thakur vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors.

Mr. Parshuram Vitthal Mhatre Decd Thru Lrs vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors.

Mr. Chandrakant Dharmaji Mokal vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors.

Amit Dholakia vs the State of Maharashtra through the Ministry of Co-Operation and 6 Ors.

Adivasi Samaj Kruti Samiti Throu. Its Secetary Satish Chadrakant Lembhe and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Other Backward Bahujan Welfare Dept Throu. Secretary

Ms Prabhu Packaging Industries Thr. Its Managing Partner Mr. T.S. Madhusudhan vs the Sub Registrar