(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 5379 OF 2006 1. Rajinder Singh s/o. Diwan Singh Bagga, Age : 57 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Plot No. 81, Sindhi Colony, Aurangabad. 2. Maninder Kaur w/o. Rajinder Singh Bagga, Age : 56 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Plot No. 81, Sindhi Colony, Aurangabad. .. Petitioners. versus 1. City and Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., IInd Floor, Nirmal Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai. 2. The Administrator, City & Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., Aurangabad. 3. The State of Maharashtra (Through its Secretary, Urban and Development Department, Mumbai ) .. Respondents. .......................... (2) Mr. A.D. Kasliwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. A.S. Bajaj, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. S.K. Kadam, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.3. .......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 27TH AUGUST 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent no.2 to issue permission for the development of the plot Nos. 295 and 296 of N-3, CIDCO, Aurangabad, in accordance with the plan submitted to the respondent nos.1 and 2. 3. The petitioners are allottees of plot Nos.295 and 296 in N-3 area of CIDCO, Aurangabad. The total area of these plots is 800 square metres. The respondent no.2 had addressed a communication dated 14th October 2003 to the petitioner no.2, that the construction on plot No. 296 shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of the notice. The petitioner replied to the said communication, that he had made the construction in the year 1986. Subsequently, the petitioner (3) made an application on 28th March 2006 for grant of permission to make construction on the said plots. A communication was addressed to the petitioner on 10th May 2006, that in view of the orders dated 13th April 2004 in Writ Petition No. 2338/1999, since the construction was not made within the stipulated time, the time for granting permission is expired and as such, his case would be considered after decision of the said Writ Petition. 4. Mr. A.D. Kasliwal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the requirement of the petitioners is bona fide. The petitioners are constructing four flats on the plots in question, one for the petitioners, one for their son and two for their daughters. He further submits that the petitioners and respective family members would be residing in those flats and those flats would not be transferred to any other person. 5. Mr. A.S. Bajaj, learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2, CIDCO, submits that since the petitioners are husband and wife and they are allotted more than one plot, they are not entitled to retain both the plots and the petitioners will have to give their choice for retaining one plot. He further submits that, in any event, if the construction is not made within the stipulated period, the petitioners are not entitled for grant of permission for development of the plot. 6. The Division Bench of this court, in Writ Petition No. 2338/1999, had issued certain directions. One of the directions was that if more than one plot was allotted to a particular person, he shall not be entitled to retain more than one plot. By subsequent order dated 13th (4) April 2004, certain restrictions have been imposed on permission to alienate or amalgamate the plots in question without permission of the court. 7. Undoubtedly, the plots, which are allotted to the petitioners, have been allotted much prior to the date on which the orders were passed by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 2338/1999 i.e. 10th November 2000. To test the bona fides of the petitioners, this court vide order dated 6th October 2007, had directed the petitioners to file affidavit so as to put on record, their requirement of the plots in question. 8. Accordingly, an affidavit has been filed on 18th February 2009, pointing out therein, that the petitioner has a grown up son, who also has two sons and they have two daughters. It is stated that the petitioners desire to build four flats on the said plots. They desire to have one flat for themselves and give one flat each to one son and two daughters. 9. The judgment of this court in Writ Petition No. 2338/1999 was challenged before the Apex Court. The Apex Court has substantially upheld the judgment with certain minor variations. In the said judgment, liberty is granted to CIDCO, to approach this court, if some clarifications are sought for. 10. We have perused the orders passed by the coordinate Benches of this court, in Civil Application No. 7360/2002 (in Writ Petition No. 2338/1999), dated 28th March 2003, and in Writ Petition Nos. 6315/2006, 6354/2006 and 6355/2006, dated 10th July 2009, (5) wherein in similar circumstances, the court has granted permission to plot holders to retain the plots after finding that their needs were bona fide. 11. In any case, when the plots were originally allotted to the petitioners, there was no restriction that a person cannot hold more than one plot. We find, that the requirement of the petitioners is bona fide. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allow the petition. 12. In the result, the petition is allowed. (i) The petitioners shall be at liberty to apply to the respondent no.2 CIDCO for grant of "no objection" certificate, for making an application for building permission to the Municipal Corporation. The said application shall be considered by the respondent nos.1 and 2, CIDCO, and "no objection" certificate in accordance with the relevant rules, shall be granted within a period of eight weeks from the date of making application. (ii) It is made clear that, however, the respondent nos.1 and 2 shall be entitled to charge the additional lease premium, if any, as permissible under the provisions of law. (iii) On such "no objection" being granted, the petitioners shall be entitled to apply to the Municipal Corporation for grant of building permission, which shall be considered in accordance with law. (iv) Needless to state, that in the event of the Municipal Corporation (6) granting building permission, the petitioners shall complete the construction within the period stipulated in the building permission. 13. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp5379