(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 5034 OF 1998 Daulatrao s/o. Govindrao Thete, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Plot No. 277, N-3, CIDCO, Aurangabad. .. Petitioner. versus 1. City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd., (CIDCO), Cidco Bhavan, Aurangabad, Through its Administrator. 2. Shri Atul s/o. Ashok Khot, Age : Major, Occupation : Business, R/o. 16, Shri Ram Nagar, Jawahar Colony, Aurangabad. 3. Shri Dinesh s/o. Yeshwantrao Patil, Age : Major, Occupation : Business, R/o. 16, Shri Ram Nagar, Jawahar Colony, Aurangabad. .. Respondents. ....................... (2) Mr. S.V. Warad, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Bajaj, Advocate, for respondent no.1. Mr. M.N. Navandar, Advocate, for respondent nos.2 and 3. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 11TH AUGUST 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V. Gangapurwala, J.) : 1. The petitioner has approached this Court, challenging the allotment of the strip / odd shaped plot situated at N-3, CIDCO, Aurangabad, in favour of respondent nos.2 and 3, by the CIDCO authorities. 2. The petitioner has been allotted Plot No. 277, admeasuring 300 square metres, at N-3, CIDCO, Aurangabad, by respondent no.1, on 9-3-1982. At the time, when the said plot was allotted to the petitioner, towards east of the said plot, there was a Nala and towards north, there was an open space. In the year 1985, the petitioner made an application for allotment of the open space on the northern side. The said request was not considered. Thereafter, the respondent no.1 constructed a (3) pathway on the said space of Nala in the year 1992. After the construction of the pathway, the petitioner applied for a space which was an odd shape, on the eastern side of his plot, for allotment. The said application was made on 21-8-1996. The respondent no.1, vide its communication dated 7-9-1996, intimated the petitioner, that the said strip of land cannot be allotted to the petitioner as the same is kept for the use of 5 metres road. The petitioner thereafter, again on 20th July 1998, applied to the respondent no.1 for grant of said strip of land towards eastern side of his plot. The respondent no.1, vide reply dated 24th July 1998, communicated the petitioner, that on the said odd shaped plot, the shop let has been created and the said strip has been sold by calling for tenders. The petitioner, noticing that the strip of land, towards eastern side of his plot, has been allotted to respondent nos.2 and 3, has approached this Court. 3. The respondent nos.2 and 3 have filed an affidavit, wherein they have specified that the said strip of land is an odd shaped plot and was never allotted after inviting tenders. 4. The respondent no.1 has also filed an affidavit, taking contrary stand. The respondent no.1, on affidavit, has stated, that as respondent nos.2 and 3 agreed to purchase the said plot at commercial rate, plus 15 %, and whereas the petitioner has (4) offered at residential rate only, it has been allotted to respondent nos.2 and 3. Further, in the said affidavit, the respondent no.1 has categorically stated that as the respondent nos.2 and 3 are adjacent shop owners and they have expressed desire to purchase 15 % above the commercial rate, the same has been leased out to the respondent nos.2 and 3. 5. Perusal of the map relied by the parties shows that the said strip of land is adjacent to the petitioner's plot No. 277, so also, adjacent to the shop No.7 of respondent nos.2 and 3. The petitioner, in the year 1996 itself, had made a request for allotment of the said strip of land, but the respondent no.1 initially denied the said plot to the petitioner, on the ground that the said strip of land is kept for the use of 5 metres road. Thereafter, the respondent no.1 further changed its stand and communicated to the petitioner, that the said open strip of land is disposed of by inviting tenders. Further, in the affidavit in reply, third stand is taken by the CIDCO, that as respondent nos.2 and 3 were offering the commercial rate and the petitioner was only offering residential rate, the strip of land has been allotted to respondent nos.2 and 3. Further, contrary is taken by the respondent no.1, in the same affidavit, stating that as the respondent nos.2 and 3 are adjacent to the small portion of land, running a small shop, and they have expressed their desire to purchase the same at commercial rate, the portion was leased out (5) to the respondent nos.2 and 3. 6. The respondent no.1 is a planning authority. It is expected that the planning authority would act as a model litigant. It is unfortunate, that the respondent no.1 has taken contradictory stand. There is no doubt, that the petitioner's plot No. 277 is also adjacent to the said open strip of land, so also, it is adjacent to shop No.7. When the said open strip of land is adjacent to the plot of the petitioner, so also, shop of respondent nos.2 and 3, the best course would be to offer the said strip of land to the petitioner, as well as, respondent nos.2 and 3, and whosoever would give more price, the same should be allotted to him. 7. In the present case, the said procedure has not at all been followed. Mr. Bajaj, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1, states that there are no rules regarding the allotment for such plots. In such circumstances, competition would be the best course. 8. In the light of the above, the petition is allowed. The allotment made in favour of respondent nos.2 and 3, of the said open strip of land, is quashed and set aside. The respondent no.1 is directed to put for auction, the said open strip (6) of land, amongst the petitioner and the respondent nos.2 and 3, and whosoever offers better price, the same shall be allotted to him. The respondent no.1 shall complete this exercise within a period of one month from today. 9. Rule is made absolute on the above terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp5034