(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 11466 OF 2010 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11492 OF 2010 WRIT PETITION NO. 11466 OF 2010 Tulsidas s/o. Madhavji Chauhan, Age : 71 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o. Plot No. 171, N-3, CIDCO, Aurangabad. .. Petitioner. versus The Administrator, City and Industrial Development Corporation, Aurangabad. .. Respondent. ....................... Mr. K.J. Suryawanshi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Bajaj, Advocate, for the respondent. ........................ (2) WRIT PETITION NO. 11492 OF 2010 Smt. Sudhabai w/o. Sahebrao Bongane, Age : Major, Occupation : Household, R/o. at present, Mahaveer Society, Kalyan, Dist. Thane, New Bombay. .. Petitioner. versus The City and Industrial Development Corporation, Aurangabad, Through its Administrator. .. Respondent. ........................... Mr. A.V. Patil, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Bajaj, Advocate, for the respondent. ........................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE, JJ. DATE : 22ND DECEMBER 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.M. Borde, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the (3) consent of parties. 2. Writ Petition No. 11492/2010 is presented, being aggrieved by the communication dated 26-11-2010, by the CIDCO authorities, directing the petitioner to approach the High Court for securing permission for transfer of lease rights in respect of Plot No. 64, Sector N-6/M, CIDCO, Aurangabad. It is also further informed by the CIDCO authorities, that the permission as requested by the petitioner, cannot be accorded without leave of the High Court. 3. The petitioner has purchased the said plot situated at CIDCO area, on 22-11-1996, and after receipt of commencement certificate from the Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad, raised construction over the residential plot. The petitioner has also been allotted occupancy certificate by the Municipal Corporation on 25-3-2010. The petitioner, because of certain personal reasons, wants to alienate the plot along with the construction raised thereon and, as such, tendered an application to the CIDCO authorities, requesting to permit transfer of lease in favour of proposed purchaser. However, it has been communicated by the CIDCO authorities, that in view of restriction imposed by the High Court, in Writ Petition No. 2388/1999, transfer cannot be permitted without securing leave (4) from the High Court. 4. In Writ Petition No. 11466/2010, the grievance of the petitioner is in respect of non-consideration of the application tendered by him for permitting transfer of one half area of the plot in favour of proposed purchaser. The petitioner, in the said petition, has been allotted the plot on lease basis from CIDCO authorities for a period of 99 years in the year 1988. He has thereafter raised construction and due to certain personal reasons, he wants to alienate the plot along with the construction. 5. The petitioners in both the petitions contend that as a result of restriction clamped in Civil Application No. 7360/2002, in Writ Petition No. 2338/1999, the CIDCO authorities are unable to consider the request made by the petitioner for transfer of lease hold rights without permission from this Court. It is stated by the petitioner, that because of the reasons personal to them, they want to alienate the property. However, CIDCO authorities are unable to consider their request. Both the petitioners have been allotted the plots for residential purpose and have raised residential building. While purchasing the property, there was no profiteering objective nor the transaction was of a speculative character. (5) 6. So far as the public interest litigation / Writ Petition No. 2338/1999 is concerned, the issues raised in said petition, at the relevant time, were in respect of violation of rules and regulations framed by the CIDCO, either by the plot holders, or the irregularities committed by the CIDCO authorities while making allotment of the plots. While dealing with Civil Application No. 7360/2002, certain restrictions were imposed in respect of two categories of plot holders. A list of 65 plot holders was submitted to the Court in respect of the allottees who did not raise construction except a skelaton of one single room and, as such, committed breach of the agreement. The Court observed that they are liable to surrender the plots to the CIDCO authorities, unless they complete the construction within a period of one year, keeping in view the rules framed by the CIDCO. The another category of plot holders was consisting of 214 in number who kept the residential plots vacant. Apart from the lot of 214 plot holders, it was found that there are certain more such allottees in the category and, as such, the Court directed issuance of individual notices, as well as, publication of public notice in the leading newspapers. 7. It is also directed by the High Court, while dealing with the said Civil Application, that no request of alienation, in any form, or amalgamation shall be entertained by CIDCO (6) without leave of the Court. It was also informed that there are certain plot holders whose transfers have been regularized and the transferees have applied for permission in response to the notices. It was observed by the Court, that after verifying the bona fides of these applicants, if CIDCO is satisfied that the intention to construct residential dwellings within one year is apparent, the CIDCO authorities may proceed to regularize the construction. At the relevant time, CIDCO authorities were directed to file compliance report. The CIDCO authorities are, even after lapse of about eight years from the passing of the order, refusing to consider the applications for transfer of plots on account of restriction clamped by the High Court in the aforesaid Civil Application and directing the parties to approach the High Court. 8. On perusal of the order, it appears that at the relevant time, the orders were issued taking into consideration the challenge raised in the public interest petition. The development activity of new township by the planning authority i.e. CIDCO is already complete and more than a decade has lapsed after allotting the plots to the plot holders. The basic objective, while imposing the restrictions, was to prevent the profiteering activities by a class of individuals and to facilitate needy residents of the city to acquire the plots for residential use. It (7) appears that the restrictions were clamped taking into account the flagrant violation of the rules framed by the CIDCO authorities and also noticing the profiteering activity indulged by a class of persons including the builders' class. The very object of developing a new township was apart from permitting plan development of the city, also to ensure that needy residents are provided with the residential plot at affordable rates. Considering the complaints made in the petition and the issues brought before the Court at the relevant time, appropriate directions were issued by this Court. 9. However, after passage of six years of passing of the order in Civil Application No. 7360/2002, the very purpose for issuing the directions is achieved. The restrictions clamped, while dealing with the application some six years back, are no more relevant now. It is an exercise in futility, in directing the plot holders, who intend to transfer the lease hold rights, to secure permission from the High Court on each occasion. There are regulations framed by the CIDCO in respect of permitting transfer of lease hold rights. On fulfillment of the requirements prescribed by the CIDCO authorities, if an individual allottee is entitled to transfer the property, there shall not be any impediment in his way, so long as he observes the rules and regulations and follows the norms as prescribed by the CIDCO (8) authorities. 10. In the result, the petitions are allowed. (i) The CIDCO authorities shall themselves consider the request made by the allottees for transfer of lease hold rights at their end without insisting upon grant of permission from this Court. The CIDCO authorities hereinafter shall consider the applications for transfer of lease hold rights, in accordance with rules and regulations and shall grant the request, at their end. The restrictions imposed in Civil Application No. 7360/2002 in Writ Petition No. 2338/1999 shall be deemed to have been relaxed to that extent. (ii) So far as the request made by the petitioners in the instant petition is concerned, the CIDCO authorities are hereby directed to consider the application and grant permission in accordance with rules and regulations framed by the CIDCO and subject to fulfillment of the condition in respect of deposit of fees or charges, if any. The respondent / CIDCO authorities are directed to accord necessary permission to the petitioners and communicate the same to the petitioners within a period of six weeks from today. (9) 11. Rule is made absolute accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( R.M. BORDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp11466etc