mss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 5554 OF 2008 VASANT SHANKAR BHOR .. .. PETITIONER Vs. CIDCO & ANR. .. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. A. H. Fatangare for the petitioner Mr. A.M. Kulkarni for R-1 Mrs. M. P. Thakur, AGP Mr. Rajiv Patil i/b A. P. Mhatre for R-4 & 5. CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATED: 30/9/2009 P.C. The case of the petitioner is that in the year 1977 his land was acquired for New Bombay Project. Award was published on 13/6/1974. Compensation was paid to the petitioner which was duly received by him. Somewhere in the year 1991 CIDCO framed a scheme whereby it decided to allot 12.5% land of the total land to the persons whose land is acquired for New Bombay Project. 2. According to the petitioner one Vasant Bhoir submitted some documents to CIDCO and CIDCO made an allotment in his favour of 12.5% of the total land of the petitioner which was acquired. The case of the petitioner is that in fact he is the owner of the acquired land and, therefore, he should have got the benefit of the said scheme of CIDCO. 3. On 17/7/09 the Division Bench of this court (J. N. Patel & Mridula Bhatkar, JJ.) passed the following order: “The learned A.G.P. after seeking instructions from S. S. Burkule, Aval Karkoon of S.L.A.O. And going through the original record and proceedings of land acquisition states that the name of the owner whose land came to be acquired by the State Government for the establishment of New Bombay is Vasant Shankar Bhor and not Vasant Shankar Bhoir. A communication to this effect along with the copy of original award would be forwarded to the respondent CIDCO within a week’s time and copy of the same would given to the petitioner. On receipt of such intimation CIDCO would also take necessary steps to allot the plot at Koparkhairane to the petitioner under 12.5% scheme within a period of four weeks. 2) Parties to act upon the authenticated copy of the order. 3) The matter be listed after six weeks so that the petition can be finally disposed of. 4) The pendency of this petition does not act as an impediment in the way of CIDCO to take action against alleged Vasant Shankar Bhoir who got allotment of plot under 12.5% scheme of CIDCO Including taking repossession of the plot by following due process of law and initiating criminal proceedings. S.O. to 28th August, 2009.” 4. Learned counsel for CIDCO informs us that pursuant to this order CIDCO has alloted the land to the petitioner vide allotment letter dated 25/9/09 at Vashi Sector 26, Plot No. 31. Copy of the said letter is taken on record and marked ‘X’. In view of this, present writ petition does not survive and will have to be disposed of as infructuous. 5. We must note at this stage that pursuant to our order respondents 4 and 5 namely Nitin Rajaram Bhosle and Mangesh Rajaram Bhosle have been added as party respondents. Mr. Rajiv Patil, learned counsel is appearing for them. Respondents 4 and 5 claim to have purchased Plot No. 122 at Koparkhairane which was allotted to Vasant Bhoir who is stated to have wrongly taken advantage of the CIDCO Scheme. Vasant Bhoir is respondent 3 in this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the CIDCO tells us that CIDCO tried to serve Vasant Bhoir at his known address, however, he could not be traced. Respondents 4 and 5 have filed affidavit inter alia stating that they are bonafide purchasers of Plot No. 122 from Vasant Bhoir under tripartite agreement dated 3/10/2000. It is pertinent to note that CIDCO is a party to the said agreement. Mr. Patil submitted that in the circumstances CIDCO cannot dispossess respondents 4 and 5. At this stage it is not necessary for us to go into this question. Needless to say that, we keep all submissions of CIDCO as well as respondents 4 and 5 on this question open. In case any action is taken by the CIDCO, respondents 4 and 5 will be at liberty to agitate those submissions. 7. Needless to say that CIDCO will enter into agreement with the petitioner in case the petitioner complies with all the required conditions. 8. Petition is disposed of. (Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.) (A. A. Sayed, J.) mss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1727 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5554 OF 2008 VASANT SHANKAR BHOR .. .. PETITIONER Vs. CIDCO & ORS. .. .. RESPONDENTS AND NITIN RAJARAM BHOSALE & ANR. .. INTERVENERS/APPLICANTS Mr. A. H. Fatangare for the petitioner Mr. A.M. Kulkarni for R-1 Mrs. M. P. Thakur, AGP Mr. Rajiv Patil i/b A. P. Mhatre for Interveners/Applicants CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATED: 30/9/2009 P.C. For the reasons stated in the civil application for intervention, application is allowed. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. Application is disposed of. (Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.) (A. A. Sayed, J.)