/ 1/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3534 OF 2007 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.586 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3534 OF 2007 Bhupendra Devji Katira & Ors. ....Petitioners V/s. City and Industrial Development Corporation (Maharashtra) Ltd. & Ors. ....Respondents Mr.Siraj Rustomji for the Petitioners. Mr.G.S. Hegde & C.M. Lokesh for Respondent No.1 & 2. Mr.R.M. Patne, AGP for the Respondent No.3. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & V.M. KANADE, JJ. DATED : 26th MARCH, 2008 P.C.:- 1. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioners are seeking issuance of writ / 2/ of mandamus directing the Respondents to allot and hand over to the Petitioners under 12.5% scheme, possession of 12.5% of the land acquired from them for Navi Mumbai. 2. Facts in this case are similar to the facts in Writ Petition No.536 of 2004. In this case also, the Petitioners are brothers and sons of late Shri. Devji Velji Katira and they carry on business in the name of M/s.Modern Water Proof Papers Manufacturing Company, an unregistered partnership firm. The said Devji Katira was the owner of Survey Nos.88A, 44(pt), 881-A, 883A, 158/5, 158/16, 6/2, 158/1ABC, 158/2, 152/4, 158/8, 158/9+12, 158/7+11(pt.). These survey numbers were acquired by the CIDCO and compensation was paid to late Shri Devji Katira, partner of the said firm. 3. The State announced scheme of allotment of plots of 12.5% of the area acquired to Khatedars from Navi Mumbai from whom possession had been taken and who were project-affected persons. On 28/10/1994, 12.5% scheme was modified and even persons who accepted the compensation, were made eligible for allotment of the land under the / 3/ scheme. The Respondent No.1 issued a letter dated 27/11/2000 informing the Respondent No.3 that in view of ' Clause J' of the Government Resolution, the public trust institutions and other institutions shall not get the benefit of this land allotment scheme. Though repeated letters were written by the Petitioners, no reply was given by the Respondents and therefore, they have filed this Writ Petition. 4. In this case, however, the Petitioners were not given any letter of allotment. They were informed that since it is a company falling within the definition of 'other institutions' and therefore, the Petitioners were not entitled to get an alternative land. We have held in Writ Petition No.536 of 2004 which also pertains to 12.5% scheme and we have interpreted ' Clause J' and we have held that partnership firm would not fall within the purview of term institution. Ratio of the said judgment would, therefore, squarely apply to the facts of this case also. 5. In our opinion, the Respondents, therefore, would be precluded from denying allotment of land on the ground that the Petitioners are the partnership firm. The Respondents, therefore, are directed to hold an / 4/ enquiry and the Petitioners shall submit all the relevant documents to establish that they were actually cultivating the land and provide other details and the Respondents shall, if it is established by the Petitioners that they were personally cultivating the land, shall allot them plots under 12.5% scheme. The Respondents to hold the inquiry as expeditiously as possible within three months from today. Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. 6. In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, nothing survives in the Civil Application. The Civil Application is disposed of accordingly. ( D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) / 5/