Narayan Gajanan Thakur vs the City Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Narayan Gajanan Thakur vs the City Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (officers of CIDCO) to consider and dispose of the Petitioner's Application dated 30 April 2024 (benefit under the 12.5% scheme) as expeditiously as possible and in any case on or before 15 May 2026, with no further time to be granted; Pending Applications, if any, also disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (CIDCO) should be directed to consider and dispose of the Petitioner's Application dated 30 April 2024 seeking benefit under the 12.5% scheme, which had remained undecided. +2 more

Court's answer

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, i.e. the officers of CIDCO, are directed to consider and dispose of the Application dated 30 April 2024 moved by the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible and in any case on or before 15 May 2026.

Ratio / Principle

The Petition need not remain pending in this Court, as only a limited relief is sought; if the Petitioner is found eligible for the 12.5% scheme, consequential relief will follow, subject to verification of the claim by Respondent-CIDCO.

Key takeaways

No further time shall be granted to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 beyond the directed deadline of 15 May 2026.ratio¶25
Pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Appellate Side, Civil Jurisdiction) — WRIT PETITION NO. 1149 OF 2026 (Narayan Gajanan Thakur v. The City Industrial Development Corporation Of Maharashtra Limited And Ors.), CORAM: MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ., dated 13 February 2026 (P.C.). The Petitioner's Application for benefit under CIDCO's 12.5% scheme (allotment of developed plots to the extent of 12.5% of the acquired land), last moved on 30 April 2024, had remained undecided by CIDCO; on 14 January 2026 a CIDCO officer had sought confirmation from the Special Land Acquisition Officer whether any reference proceeding had been filed against the acquisition award, and counsel stated on instructions that none was preferred. Holding that only limited relief was sought and eligibility would be subject to verification by CIDCO, the Court disposed of the Petition by directing Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (CIDCO) to consider and dispose of the Application dated 30 April 2024 as expeditiously as possible and in any case on or before 15 May 2026, making clear that no further time shall be granted; Pending Applications, if any, also stood disposed of.

11.WP.1149.2026.DOC

ANANT KRISHNA NAIK

Digitally signed by ANANT KRISHNA NAIK Date: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 2026.02.1611:14:43 APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION +0530

WRIT PETITION NO. 1149 OF 2026

Narayan Gajanan Thakur ....Petitioner V/S The City Industrial Development Corporation Of Maharashtra Limited And Ors. ...Respondents

Adv. Sanket Thakur for the Petitioner.

Adv. Harshit Taygi (through VC) i/b. DSK Legal for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2-CIDCO

Mr. Kedar B. Dighe, Addl. GP a/w. Adv. Pooja Patil, AGP for the Respondent-State

CORAM: MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ. DATE: 13^th FEBRUARY 2026

P.C.

The grievance of the Petitioner in the present Writ Petition is that an Application moved on his behalf for benefit of 12.5% scheme has not been decided by the acquiring body i.e. City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (CIDCO). According to the Petitioner, he is eligible for benefit under the said scheme for allotment of developed plots to the extent of 12.5% of the acquired land.

It is brought to our notice that last such Application was moved by the Petitioner on 30^th April, 2024 and till date the acquiring body-CIDCO has not responded.

Akn

1

11.WP.1149.2026.DOC

The Respondent No. 1 and 2-CIDCO are represented by Counsel, who has joined through video conferencing. Respondent Nos. 3 to 8 are represented by learned AGP.

The learned Counsel appearing for Respondent-CIDCO submits that recently on 14^th January, 2026, the concerned officer of CIDCO has sent a communication to Respondent No. 3-Special Land Acquisition Officer to ascertain whether the Petitioner has filed any reference proceeding in the context of the acquisition award. It is further submitted that a response is awaited. It is further submitted that necessary communications are being addressed to all concerned authorities in the process of considering the Application of the Petitioner on merits.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner makes a statement on instructions that reference was not preferred and that therefore, the Application of the Petitioner can be decided and disposed of at the earliest.

We are of the opinion that the present Petition need not remain pending in this Court, as a limited relief is sought on behalf of the Petitioner. If the Petitioner is found to be eligible for the 12.5% scheme, a consequential relief is bound to follow, but this would be subject to verification of the claim raised by the Petitioner before the RespondentCIDCO

Considering the fact that the Application moved by the Petitioner is

Akn

2

11.WP.1149.2026.DOC

pending since 30^th April, 2024, an appropriate direction can be issued for deciding and disposing of the said Application expeditiously.

In that view of the matter, the Petition is disposed of by directing Respondent Nos 1 and 2 i.e. the officers of CIDCO to consider and dispose of the Application dated 30^th April, 2024 moved by the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible and in any case on or before 15^th May, 2026. It is made clear that no further time shall be granted

Pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)

Akn

3