(1) WP No. 5178/2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5178 OF 2004 Ekta Prakashan, Now Ekta ] New Line Pvt. Ltd., ] Town Center, CIDCO, ] PETIEIONER. Aurangabad, Through ] Executive Director. ] VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ] Through Principal Secretary] RESPONDENTS. Urban Development Deptt. ] Mantralaya, Mumbai & others] ----- Mr.M.V.Deshpande,Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.U.K.Patil,AGP, for respondent No.1. Mr.A.S.Bajaj, Advocate, for respondent No.2 and 3. ----- CORAM : Naresh H. Patil and N.D.Deshpande, JJ. DATE : 3rd July, 2009. ORAL ORDER [ PER – NARESH H. PATIL, J.] 1] Heard. 2] The petitioner was allotted a plot by City and Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (2) WP No. 5178/2004 (for short “CIDCO”) on lease. By impugned notice dated 30/1/2004 CIDCO called upon the petitioner to pay difference in the lease amount, in view of orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2338 of 1999, which was a public interest litigation. The said notice is challenged in this petition. 3] The learned counsel Shri. M.V.Deshpande, appearing on behalf of petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is not covered by the order passed by Division Bench of this Court (Coram : B.H.Marlapalle and N.V.Dabholkar, JJ.] in Writ Petition No.2338 of 1999 and an order in Writ Petition No.1804 of 2004, dated 15th April, 2004. The petitioner was allotted subject-plot admeasuring 462.50 sq. meters, in the year 1997, on lease, at the rate of Rs.1150/- per sq.mtr. The total lease amount of said plot was Rs.5,31,875/-. However, in view of the orders passed by High Court referred to above, CIDCO claimed the lease amount at the rate of Rs.3000/- per sq. mtr. The earlier price of the plot was Rs.5,31,875/- and according to the revised rates, the lease amount would be Rs.13,87,500/-. Under the orders of the Court, CIDCO deducted notional amount of interest accrued on the amount deposited by petitioner, which came to Rs.2,17,722/-, and thereafter demanded remaining amount of Rs.6,43,653/- by impugned notice. (3) WP No. 5178/2004 4] The learned counsel Shri.Deshpande submitted that petitioner’s plot is not covered under orders passed by this Court and, therefore, individually, petitioner’s case must be considered and the impugned notice shall be quashed and set aside. 5] The learned counsel Shri.A.S.Bajaj, appearing on behalf of respondent CDIDCO, has brought to our notice the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1804 of 2004, dated 15th April, 2004. We have gone through the entire order passed. More particularly, learned counsel Shri.Bajaj has laid emphasis on para “9” of the order dated 28/03/2003 in Writ Petition NO.2338 of 1999, which reads thus : “9. Cidco has also invited our attention to some allotment made in Survey No.15(part) of Garkheda and Survey Nos.8 and 68 of N-2 Mukundwadi and Survey No.12(12) and Survey No. 125, 126 and 127 (Part) of Satara. We direct Cidco to follow the same course of action as he has been set out by us in respect of survey no.70 N-2 (Pocket III).” 6] Based on these orders, learned counsel Shri.Bajaj submitted that petitioner’s plot No.21 in Sector Survey No.8, Neighbourhood N-2/A was also covered under the orders passed in public interest litigation Writ Petition No.2338/1999 disposed of by (4) WP No. 5178/2004 the Court; and the subsequent order passed by this Court is required to be followed in letter and spirit. Based on the same, CIDCO issued notice to the petitioner. 7] Considering submissions advanced and the documents placed on record, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned notice. In view of the directions passed by Court, the CIDCO issued notice. There is no merit in the petition. The petition deserves to be dismissed. 8] The learned counsel Shri.M.V.Deshpande, for petitioner, seeks three months’ time for depositing the difference of lease amount of Rs.6,43,653/-. We grant the request made by Shri.Deshpande, and accordingly, petitioner is entitled to deposit Rs.6,43,653/- (Rs. Six Lacs Forty Three Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Three Only) with CIDCO. After the amount is deposited with CIDCO, we direct the CIDCO to issue appropriate orders for regularization of subject-plot. The petitioner thereafter would be entitled to file an application for development of the subject-plot according to Development Plan. If petitioner fails to deposit the amount within three months, CIDCO is entitled to take appropriate steps in accordance with law and in tune with the impugned notice. (5) WP No. 5178/2004 9] With these observations, the petition is disposed of. [ N.D.Deshpande,J.] [ Naresh H. Patil,J.] pcr/o/wp5178.04