1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6175 OF 2009 1) Kamlakar s/o Raosaheb Patil, Age-44 years, Occu:Business, 2) Suhas s/o Annarao Mane, Age-39 years, Occu:Business, Both R/o- C/o- Dr. Shinde, Bansilal Nagar, Station Road, Aurangabad. ...PETITIONERS. VERSUS City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd., Udyog Bhavan, CIDCO, New Aurangabad, Through its Administrator. ...RESPONDENT. ... Shri.N.V. Gavare Advocate for the Petitioners. Shri.A.S. Bajaj Advocate for the Respondent. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL & K.U. CHANDWAL, JJ. DATE : 18TH NOVEMBER, 2009. JUDGMENT (PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2 2. The Petitioners submit that they purchased a plot No.314, N-3, CIDCO, Aurangabad from the original allottee Mr. Kailash Binayke. The original allottee was allotted the said plot from CIDCO in the year 1985. The occupancy certificate was obtained by the original allottee on 31st January, 1996. In the year 1997, by executing a deed of assignment, the Petitioners got the plot transferred in their name from the original allottee. The CIDCO had also issued N.O.C. for the said transaction. The said plot admeasurs 576 sq. meters. Since then the Petitioners had not constructed/ developed the property. In view of the orders passed by this Court 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 other, certain time limit was prescribed for the CIDCO allottees to develop their plots. Direction No.8 of the Apex Court in this regard reads as under: "8. Inasmuch as we have upheld the judgment of the High Court except for minor variations in the relief granted 3 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 Court 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. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submit that the Petitioners are in the business of digging bore wells and therefore they had to move from place to place as their financial condition was poor. The Petitioners do not have any other plot in CIDCO area. The Petitioners have now decided to settle in Aurangabad and their family is in acute need of residential house of their own. In view of the orders passed by this Court in the Petitions mentioned above, CIDCO authorities could not grant permission to the Petitioners for developing their property and therefore the Petitioners approached this Court. 4. The learned counsel Shri Bajaj appearing for CIDCO, submitted that in fact the Petitioners had violated the directions issued by this Court by not 4 developing the plot within prescribed time frame. 5. We have considered the contentions raised in the Petition and the submissions advanced before us. We have perused the orders passed by this Court while granting permission to certain allottees after the prescribed time frame set out by this Court. 6. In the facts of the present case, we find that the occupancy certificate was already issued by CIDCO In favour of the original allottee. There is no dispute on the point that the Petitioners are the assignee of the rights of the original allottee. CIDCO had issued no objection to the transactions entered into between the original allottee and the Petitioners. Considering all these aspects of the matter, by putting certain conditions we are inclined to allow the Petitioners to construct a residential house. 7. We therefore, direct that the Petitioners shall file fresh application to the CIDCO authorities for getting the N.O.C. for construction of residential 5 house within four weeks from today. In case such an application is filed, for claiming N.O.C. for constructing residential house on the said plot No. 314, situated at N-3, the CIDCO authorities shall pass appropriate final order on the said application within four weeks thereafter. The Petitioners shall furnish their current residential address to the CIDCO authorities along with land line and cell phone numbers for prompt communication. After getting the N.O.C. from CIDCO authorities, the Petitioners shall file application for development permission/ sanction for construction of residential house to Aurangabad Municipal Corporation within four weeks thereafter. After receipt of the application for sanction/ development/ building permission/ construction permission, we direct Aurangabad Municipal Corporation to pass appropriate orders on the said application within three months from the date of receipt of the said application. The Petitioners shall resume construction of the residential house within six months from the date of permission received from the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation. 6 8. The Petitioners undertake before this Court that in respect of any clarification/ modification of this order, the Petitioners would not resort to any other remedies than to approach this Court. 9. In case of violation of conditions as stipulated in the order, the CIDCO, is entitled to cancel the lease agreement and take back possession of the said plot. . Rule made absolute on the terms indicated above. [K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.] asb/NOV09/wp6175.09