AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3810 OF 2005 Shri Namdeo Gajanan Bhagat & Ors. ... Petitioners Vs. The Managing Director, CIDCO & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. S.M. Kamble for the petitioners. Mr. G.S. Hegde for respondents 1 and 2. Mr. C.R. Sonawane, A.G.P. for respondent 3. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. DATED : JANUARY 9, 2008. P.C.:- 1. The basic grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that order dated 15/7/2004 passed by this court in Writ Petition No.1987 of 2004 has not been fully complied with by respondent 2 (for convenience, “CIDCO”). AJN 2 2. It appears that CIDCO has earmarked certain lands for allotment to the petitioners as per their entitlement under the 12.5% scheme. It was pointed out to this court in Writ Petition No.1987 of 2004 that in one of the awards, the petitioners were having 50% share and unless both the co-sharers make a joint application, CIDCO will not be able to make allotment in respect of the said award. It was pointed out to the court by learned counsel for the petitioners that as per consent order passed by the competent civil court, the petitioners alone are entitled for the allotment and the co- sharer has no objection if the entire land is allotted to the petitioners alone. In the circumstances, this court passed the following directions: “CIDCO is directed to make allotment in respect of the undisputed awards within four weeks from today. SO far as the award where the joint ownership is claimed, CIDCO may verify the documents produced by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders within four weeks from the date of receipt of the documents from the petitioners.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that CIDCO AJN 3 has partly complied with the directions issued by this court. Allotment has been made in respect of the undisputed awards. However, in respect of the awards where the joint ownership is claimed, CIDCO was asked to verify the documents produced by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders within four weeks from the date of receipt of the documents from the petitioners. CIDCO has, however, failed to comply with this part of the order. 4. We have heard Mr. Hegde learned counsel appearing for the CIDCO. He drew our attention to order dated 16/3/2005 passed by CIDCO. He pointed out that in the proceedings in which the compromise was arrived at, CIDCO was not a party. He submitted that CIDCO has complied with this court's order. He submitted that in the decree dated 29/4/1989 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alibag in Land Acquisition Reference No.109 of 1985, it is not specifically mentioned that benefit of the 12.5% scheme should be given to the petitioners only. He contended that the benefits of the said 12.5% scheme are being provided to the land holders, whose names appear in the award as per the policy of the Board AJN 4 and as the names of Krishna D. Bhoir and Smt. Thakibai Hashya Bhoir have been mentioned in the award No.517, plot has to be allotted under the 12.5% scheme of the said land to the heirs of Krishna D. Bhoir and Smt. Thakibai Hashya Bhoir. 5. Our attention has been drawn by learned counsel for the petitioners to the compromise pursis. It does appear from the compromise pursis that Baliram Krishna Bhoir, the son of deceased Krishna Dunkarya Bhoir has agreed to take Rs.25,112/- and he has further agreed that upon receipt of the said amount, he shall not claim any right, title and interest in respect of the concerned lands. It is pertinent to note that in the order dated 29/4/1989, there is a reference to compromise pursis. It appears that Baliram Krishna Bhoir has died about 10 years back. His heirs, however, are not on record. His brothers and sisters are on record. In the circumstances, in our opinion, in view of the order passed by this court dated 15/7/2004 and in view of the compromise pursis and the order passed by Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alibag, CIDCO should issue notice to all concerned and hear them and AJN 5 pass appropriate orders. We direct CIDCO to conduct the entire exercise within a period of three months from today. We feel that CIDCO should reconsider the case of the petitioners in the light of the compromise pursis in accordance with law. We, however, make it clear that the matter may be considered independently. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioners on instructions from the petitioner 1 - Namdeo Gajanan Bhagat says that the petitioners are ready and willing to pay the transfer charges. Writ petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.]