WP 8669/10 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8669/2010 Dr.Muhammad Mujibuddin s/o Muhammad Najibuddin, aged 45 yrs., occu.Medical Practitioner, r/o c/o Shaikh Saleem, Plot No.16, Maulana Azad Cooperative Housing Society, Aurangabad. ...Petitioner.. Versus 1] The Administrator, City & Industrial Development Corporation Limited, CIDCO, New Aurangabad. 2] The City & Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited, CIDCO, New Aurangabad. ...Respondents... ..... Shri Y.M. Khan, Advocate for petitioner. Shri A.S. Bajaj, Advocate for respondents. ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE: 16.12.2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per P.V. Hardas, J.) : WP 8669/10 - 2 - 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2] The petitioner, who had been allotted Plot No.37 in D-Sector in N-12 area, CIDCO, Aurangabad, on 17.6.2008, now seeks permission from the respondents – CIDCO authorities for alienating the said plot. It appears that after his initial allotment on 17.6.2008, the petitioner was in receipt of a communication from the respondents dated 25.6.2008 informing the petitioner that his application for regularisation of his case for construction would be considered after decision in Writ Petition No.2338/1999. Since the petitioner had not completed the construction within the stipulated period, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 5631/2008 in this Court. This Court, by its judgment / order dated 25.9.2008, allowed the petition and directed the respondent – CIDCO to issue no objection and after obtaining due permission from the Municipal Corporation, the petitioner was permitted to construct the building. Accordingly, the petitioner carried out the construction on Plot No.35, D-Sector, N-12, CIDCO, Aurangabad. 3] The petitioner now contends that the petitioner is in urgent need of money for higher education of his children abroad and, therefore, on 16.6.2010 had filed an application before the respondents – CIDCO for permission to transfer and assign the leasehold rights of the said plot. The respondent – CIDCO by its communications dated 24.6.2010 / 01.07.2010 informed the petitioner that as the WP 8669/10 - 3 - Division Bench of this Court had issued directions in Writ Petition No.2338/1999 on 13.4.2004 directing the CIDCO not to permit alienation in any form or amalgamation without the leave of this Court in respect of 214 plots, which were adverted to in the said order. 4] The petitioner had constructed his house with the permission of the Court and, therefore, now seeks to transfer and assign the leasehold rights of the said plot as the petitioner is facing financial crunch in order to meet the expenses of higher education of his children. We, therefore, allow this petition and direct the respondent – CIDCO to decide the application of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. Rule is, thus, made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. (A.V. POTDAR, J.) (P.V. HARDAS, J.) ndk/cr1612105