vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2962 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.2962 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.2962 OF 2008 Vishwasrao K. Shinde ... Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.H.S. Venegavkar for Petitioner Mr.R.M. Patne, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J MHATRE, J MHATRE, J. DATED: OCTOBER 17, 2008 OCTOBER 17, 2008 OCTOBER 17, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The petitioner is the son of an ex-serviceman. His father retired from the Indian Army and was allotted a plot of land in 1970. This plot was acquired by the State Government for the Kaner Dam project and an alternate plot was given to the petitioner’s father on 31.3.1981. It appears that the petitioner’s father then applied for various permissions in order to develop the plot. These applications have been pending with the Municipal Council, Satara from 1984. Surprisingly, the Municipal Council has not taken any action on those applications till today. It appears that since the petitioner’s father had not used the plot by constructing any structure within a period of two years after allotment, the State now desires to withdraw the plot from the petitioner. : 2 : 2. The petitioner sought permission from the State to grant him additional time for construction. However, this permission was refused by the Collector. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner before Revenue Commissioner, Pune region. The appellate authority has rejected the appeal on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to any concession. The petitioner had pointed out that in a similar case, Smt.P.B. Mahadik had been allotted a plot in 1970 and that she was given the liberty to continue with the construction by revoking the order withdrawing the plot from her. According to the petitioner, the same conditions should apply to him as were applicable to Ms.Mahadik. The appellate authority has observed that since Smt.Mahadik’s husband had died at war, she could be given some concession by permitting her to develop the plot belatedly. 2. Mr.Venegavkar, appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner undertakes to complete the development of the plot within 18 months from today and, therefore, some concession should be shown to the petitioner who had lost his father in 1985. 3. In my opinion, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, the request made on behalf : 3 : of the petitioner is reasonable. Hence, the petitioner is given liberty to commence the construction and development of the plot, after obtaining the requisite permissions. It must be completed within 18 months from today. In the event of failure of the petitioner to complete the construction within 18 months from today, the land will be withdrawn from him and restored to the State Government. The petitioner will not ask for any extension of time. 4. The petition is disposed of accordingly.