( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2802 OF 2010 Usha w/o Kishor Pawar and others PETITIONERS VERSUS National Insurance Company Ltd. RESPONDENT ..... Mr. S.G. Chapalgaonkar, advocate for the petitioners. None for the respondent. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 15th June, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. None appeared for the respondent, though served. 2. By this petition, the petitioners challenge order passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge, Aurangabad on their application (Exh-A) bearing Misc. Application No. 28/2010. The learned Adhoc District Judge (M.A.C.T.) rejected the application by following order : ( 2 ) “Plot Commencement Certificate, Plan, in the name of Ashish Dale. Not in the name of any of the claimants. Ground not sufficient for withdrawal of amount. Hence rejected.” 3. The petitioners would submit that the amount fixed in the name of the petitioner No. 1 was sought to be released for construction of a house property on the plot No. 129. It is true that the plot stands in the name of Ashish Dale, who is the brother of petitioner No.1. However, the application itself shows that said Ashish Dale and her father gave the plot to her. The plot could not be transferred in her favour as per rules of CIDCO because there was no construction raised and without construction of a house property, transfer was not permissible. Her brother Ashish Dale and father Jagannath Dale have filed affidavits in support of the application. The learned Adhoc District Judge did not refer to these affidavits. In fact, the learned Adhoc District Judge passed cryptic order without application of judicial mind. The petitioner No. 1 is a middle aged woman and sought release of the amount in order to get herself separate shelter under constructed house. This cause shown in the application ought to have been considered. The impugned order appears to be quite improper and arbitrary. In this view of the matter, the ( 3 ) impugned order is unsustainable. 4. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The amount shall be released in favour of the petitioner No. 1 for utilization thereof for construction of the house property. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp2802-10