1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY : AURANGABAD BENCH WRIT PETITION NO.6315 OF 2006 WITH Ramesh Bodhraj Nagpal - - - Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and another - - Respondents Shri A. P. Bhandari, Advocate for petitioner. Shri V. B. Ghatge, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent No.1. Shri A. S. Bajaj, Advocate for Respondent No.2. WRIT PETITION NO. 6354 OF 2006 WITH Shilpa Ramesh Nagpal - - - Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and another. - - - - - Respondents Shri S. V. Gangapurwala, Advocate for petitioner. Shri V. B. Ghatge, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent No.1. Shri A. S. Bajaj, Advocate for Respondent No.2. 2 WRIT PETITION NO. 6355 OF 2006 Shweta Ramesh Nagpal - - - Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and another. - - - - - Respondents Shri L. D. Vakil, Advocate for petitioner. Shri V. B. Ghatge, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent No.1. Shri A. S. Bajaj, Advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. Dated : 10th July 2009 ORAL ORDER [ Per NARESH H. PATIL, J. ] 1. Heard. 2. With the assistance of learned Counsel Shri Bajaj, we have perused the order passed in Writ Petition No. 2338 of 1999 and the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 19687 of 2000 in the case of Padma vs. Hiralal Motilal Desarda and others. One of the directions given by the Apex Court for disposal of the Appeal is relevant for our purpose. 3 Direction No.8 reads :- "8. Inassmuch as we have upheld the judgment of the High Court except for minor variations in the relief granted by the High Court, it shall be open to CIDCO or to any other party, for the matter of that, to seek directions of the High Court so as to implement the judgment of the High Courts as sustained by this Court. The costs of these proceedings throughout shall be borne by the respondents Nos.5, 6, 9 and 15 [in the High Court]." 3. We have perused the other orders passed by this Court after disposal of the S.L.P. in the matter of applicants who had approached this Court for clarification of some corrective orders. 4. In Writ Petition No. 6315 of 2006, according to Shri S.V. Gangapurwala, one Mr. Sabir Ahmed was allotted plot No.268 by the CIDCO in the year 1989. In the year 1990, the 4 said plot was transferred in the name of the petitioner Ramesh Nagpal. On 9-8-2006, show cause notice was issued by the CIDCO consequent to the orders passed by the High Court. On 14-8-2006, application for construction of house was filed before the CIDCO, according to the Counsel. On 17-8-2006, writ petition was filed in this Court. 5. In the matter of Writ Petition No. 6354 of 2006, the stand of the Counsel appearing for petitioner is that plot No. 267 was originally allotted to one Zakir Ahmed from whom the petitioner Ramesh Nagpal got it transferred in his name in the year 1990 and the said plot was transferred in the name of married daughter of Ramesh Nagpal namely; Shilpa on 9-9-2005. 6. In the matter of Writ Petition No. 6355 of 2006, the plot No. 266 was originally allotted to Taher Ahmed. It was transferred in the name of Ramesh Nagpal in 1990 and thereafter, the 5 plot was transferred in the name of his daughter namely; Shweta on 23-12-2005. The petitioners filed applications before the CIDCO, according to Counsel, for permission for development of plot for construction of residential house. 7. Learned Counsel for petitioners Shri S.V. Gangapurwala, submits that both the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 6354 of 2006 and Writ Petition No. 6355 of 2006 are married daughters of Mr. Ramesh Nagpal, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6315 of 2006. Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6354 of 2006, being independent family, wants to develop the plot by constructing residential house. There is no intention of the family to develop the property commercially for profiteering. Even the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6355 of 2006 desires to construct residential house, and according to Counsel, the petitioner would not develop the property commercially for profiteering purposes. Learned Counsel Shri 6 Gangapurwala, on instructions, further submits that after developing the plots by petitioners in Writ Petition No. 6354 of 2006 and Writ Petition No. 6355 of 2006, they under take before this Court that the property would not be transferred in the name of Mr. Ramesh Nagpal, who is father of the petitioners. This, Counsel submits, would be sufficient to demonstrate bona fides of the petitioners, who have been in possession of the property since last more than almost 20 years. 8. During the course of arguments, it transpired that petitioners approached to the Civil Court by filing Appeal against orders of eviction passed by the CIDCO and probably have obtained interim reliefs. In all fairness, it was necessary for the petitioners to disclose this fact before this Court though petitions of the petitioners are pending since 2006. We express our displeasure for the same. It would be necessary for CIDCO to take appropriate stand 7 before the Court before which such appeals are filed against the eviction orders passed consequent to the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2338 of 1999 and the Judgment and Order passed by the Apex Court in S.L.P. No. 19687 of 2000. The question would be as to whether it would be appropriate for the Civil Court or any other forum to pass orders overriding the orders passed by this Court from time to time and the Supreme Court in respect to the subject matter which was dealt with by the Court. The CIDCO shall verify record of other cases wherein the parties have approached the Civil Court or other forums in relation to eviction notices and take appropriate stand in such matters urgently. 9. We have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Considering the facts of the case, the need and bona fides of the parties, we are inclined to allow the petitioners individually to develop 8 the subject plots in accordance with the Development Control Rules by obtaining No Objection Certificate from CIDCO and thereafter taking permission from Aurangabad Municipal Corporation. We, therefore, pass the following order :- Order: 10. We, therefore, direct that the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 6315 of 2006, Writ Petition No. 6354 of 2006 and Writ Petition No. 6355 of 2006 shall file fresh applications to CIDCO authorities for claiming No Objection Certificate for constructing residential house on their respective plots within four weeks from today. In case such applications are filed within four weeks, from the date of receipt of applications, the CIDCO authorities shall pass appropriate final orders on N.O.C. within eights weeks therefrom. The petitioners shall furnish current residential address to the CIDCO authorities along with the land-line and cell 9 phone Nos. for prompt communication. After getting No Objection Certificate from CIDCO authorities, the petitioners shall file applications for seeking development permission/ sanction plan for construction of residential house within eight weeks thereafter to the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation. Failure of compliance as directed by this Court by the petitioners would entitle the CIDCO to initiate proceedings for taking over possession of the subject plots. After receipt of application for sanction of building permission/ construction permission/ commencement certificate, Aurangabad Municipal Corporation shall dispose of the applications within three months from the date of receipt of the applications. From the date of permission granted by the Corporation, the petitioner shall develop the property as directed above for the said purpose within one year thereafter. 11. Learned Counsel Shri S. V. Gangapurwala 10 undertakes before this Court that all the appeals filed by the petitioners before the District Court, Aurangabad under the provisions of The Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955, if pending as on today, on instructions, shall be withdrawn within two weeks from today. 12. In the light of the order passed by us in these writ petitions, eviction orders passed by CIDCO stand withdrawn and become inoperative. Any further clarification in regard to this order by any of the parties shall be sought from this Court. Petitions are disposed of with the above directions. ( N.D.DESHPANDE, J.) ( NARESH H. PATIL, J. ) pnk/wp631506