1 2227.10-wp bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2227 OF 2000 Mrs.Angels Celestina Tavares & Ors. ..Petitioners Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India ..Respondent Mr.Bookwala, Senior Advocate with Mr.Owen Menzes i/b. Mr.R.S.Tripathi for petitioners. Mr.Ramesh Cheluskar for respondent. CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 23, 2010 P.C. The relevant facts as recorded in the order of this Court dated 14th August, 1998 passed in Writ Petition No.3680 of 1988 are that the leasehold rights were granted to the petitioner by respondent No.1 Corporation by a deed dated 15th February, 1961 of a plot No.18 for a period of 999 years. Subsequently, the lay-out plan was revised and according to the Corporation, two roads were to be constructed through the plot of which leasehold rights were granted to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, on 5th January, 1973, a plot No.1 was allotted to the petitioner as an alternate, but it was found that even that plot was not available because of the provisions of Urban Ceiling Act and therefore the petitioner approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition No.3680 of 1988 for appropriate direction to the respondent Corporation. 2 2227.10-wp 2. That Writ Petition was disposed of by an order dated 14th August, 1998. This Court directed the petitioner to make a fresh representation for allotment of a suitable plot and respondent No.1 Corporation was directed to consider that representation sympathetically and expeditiously. The petitioner accordingly made the representations. Those representations fetched reply dated 10th September, 1999. That reply was given on behalf of the Corporation in relation to the representations of the petitioner dated 15th September, 1998, 14th January, 1999 and 21st June, 1999. It is paragraph No.4 of that reply. The relevant portion of that reply reads as under: 4. As regard the contentions mentioned in your letter dated 15th September, 1998 in para 6 that any plot bearing plot Nos. 2 to 7 may be granted and preferably plot No.2 may be granted is concerned, our clients hereby state that plot Nos.2 to 7 are not available for giving as an alternate plot because the same are already allotted and in respect of some of the plots, the litigations are pending in the Civil Courts. As regard plot No.2 is concerned, it cannot be given on the same ground. Our clients therefore regret to consider sympathetically request by your clients. 3. Thus, the request made by the petitioner for allotment of plot No.2 was rejected on the ground that plot Nos.2 to 7 have already been allotted and there is litigation pending in the Court. In these circumstances, challenging this communication, the present petition has been filed. 4. In this petition, an affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent Corporation dated 2nd February, 2001 by Shri Oliver D’Souza and in paragraph 3 of that affidavit, it was stated that plot Nos.2 to 7 out of CTS No.1342 are no more in existence and as the plots are no more in existence as per the revised development plan, there is no question of allotment of those plots to the petitioner. 3 2227.10-wp 5. On 26th April, 2001, another affidavit was filed by one Mr.Sunil Bihari Mathur on behalf of the Corporation and in that affidavit, he stated “I hereby state that the strip of land bearing CTS No.1342 of village Eksar shown is an open piece of land in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Sanctioned Development Plan for 1981-2001 and the same is meant for construction of houses for public purpose and said piece of land therefore is an integrated part in the revised development plan of State Government. I further say that the said strip of land bearing CTS No.1342 is not divided into sub plots and hence the demand of the petitioner that any one plot in Plot Nos.2,3,4,5,6 & 7 out of CTS No.1342 may be allotted cannot be complied with.” 6. Thus, from the record, it is apparent that in relation to the plot of which allotment was claimed by the petitioner, different stands have been taken by the Corporation in its reply dated 10th September, 1999. The case of the Corporation was that, Plot Nos.2 to 7 have already been allotted and there is a litigation pending in Civil Court in relation to their allotment. Then, in the affidavit dated 2nd April, 2001 a stand was taken that plot Nos.2 to 7 in CTS No.1342 do not exist at all and in another affidavit dated 26th April, 2001, it was claimed that CTS No.1342 exists but it is not divided into plots. 7. It appears that the matter had come up before the Division Bench of this Court for hearing on 11th June, 2010. On behalf of the respondent Corporation, a request was made for an adjournment of the matter for two weeks. That request was granted by the Division Bench but the Division Bench directed the Corporation in the mean while to consider the proposal of allotting the alternate plot to the petitioner. Though nearly six months have 4 2227.10-wp passed thereafter, the Corporation has not taken any decision in relation to the allotment of plot to the petitioner. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent is also not in a position to make any definite statement. In our opinion, thus, the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.3680 of 1988 dated 14th August, 1998 has still not been complied with. Taking over all view of the matter, therefore, in our opinion, the following order would meet the ends of justice. a) The decision communicated to the petitioner in relation to his representations dated 15th September, 1998, 14th January, 1999 and 21st June, 1999 incorporated in the letter dated 10th September, 1999, a copy of which is at Exhibit-”F” to the petition is set aside. b) The respondent Corporation is directed to consider those representations of the petitioner in terms of the order of this Court dated 14th August, 1998 passed in Writ Petition No.3680 of 1988 afresh and dispose of all of them by a speaking order as expeditiously as possible in any case within a period of ten weeks from today. c) In case the decision is adverse to the interest of the petitioner, all contentions and remedies of the petitioner are kept open. d) Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (N.D.DESHPANDE,J.) (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.)