(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 616 OF 2007 Vaishali Pigments Private Limited, Office : Ayodhya, 256, N-3, CIDCO, Aurangabad, through its Managing Director, Mahendra Madhukar Joshi. .. Petitioner. versus The City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited, Through its Administrator, Udyog Bhavan, CIDCO, New Aurangabad. .. Respondent. .......................... W I T H WRIT PETITION NO. 2417 OF 2007 Vaishali Pigments Pvt. Ltd., Office : "Ayodhya", 256, N-3, CIDCO, Aurangabad, through its Director of petitioner Company, Shri Vijay Madhukar Joshi, Age : 53 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. N-3, CIDCO, Aurangabad. .. Petitioner. versus (2) The City & Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd., Through its Administrator, Udyog Bhavan, CIDCO, New Aurangabad. .. Respondent. .......................... W I T H WRIT PETITION NO. 2419 OF 2007 Vaishali Pigments Pvt. Ltd., Office : "Ayodhya", 256, N-3, CIDCO, Aurangabad, through its Director, Shri Vijay Madhukar Joshi. .. Petitioner. versus The City & Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd., Through its Administrator, Udyog Bhavan, CIDCO, New Aurangabad. .. Respondent. ........................ Mr. A.M. Karad, Advocate, for the petitioners in the three petitions. Mr. A.S. Bajaj, Advocate, for the respondent in the three petitions. ************** (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 Writ Petition No. 616/2007, the petitioner challenges the notices dated 21st September 2006 and 16th October 2006, issued to the petitioner for eviction on the ground that the petitioner has not commenced the construction within the prescribed time limit. 3. In Writ Petition No. 2417/2007 and Writ Petition No. 2419/2007, the petitioner is challenging the letters dated 7th December 2006, thereby rejecting the applications filed by the petitioner for construction on Plot No.6 and Plot No.21-D, respectively, for providing accommodation to its offices. 4. The petitioner, which is a private limited Company, was allotted Plot Nos. 6, 21-D and 22 in N-3, Town Centre, Aurangabad, on 30th November 1994 and 1st December 1994. Accordingly, an agreement of lease was also executed by the petitioner Company and the respondent CIDCO on 3rd July 1995. It appears that since the petitioner did not complete the construction within the stipulated period, since the number of plots allotted to the petitioner were more than one, the eviction notice came to be issued in so far as Plot No. 22 is concerned and "no objection" (4) certificate was refused, in so far as Plot Nos. 6 and 21-D are concerned. Being aggrieved thereby, the present three petitions. 5. Mr. A.M. Karad, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the construction could not be completed within the stipulated period, as the property was hypotheticated with the Bank and since the matter has now been settled with the Bank, the petitioner desires to make construction. 6. In so far as other two plots viz. Plot Nos. 6 and 21-D, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the allotment is in favour of a Company, the decision of Division Bench delivered in Writ Petition No. 2338/1999 would not come in the way of the petitioner in view of the orders passed by the Division Bench, dated 29th June 2007, in Writ Petition No. 2464/2007 and companion petitions. 7. Mr. A.S. Bajaj, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, CIDCO, submits that since the petitioner did not complete the construction within the stipulated period and since more than one plots were allotted to it, the petition is liable to be rejected in view of the decision delivered by this court in Writ Petition No. 2338/1999. 8. Mr. A.S. Bajaj, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, also relies on the order passed by the Division Bench, dated 13th April 2004 in Civil Application No. 7360/2002 and judgment dated 10th November 2000, delivered in Writ Petition No. 2338/1999, wherein this court has observed, that no request for alienation in any form or amalgamation shall be entertained by the CIDCO, without the leave of (5) this court. 9. The Division Bench of this court in the judgment delivered in Writ Petition No. 2338/1999 has observed thus : " The allotment of land by CIDCO in Sectors N-2 and N-4 (South) consisting of Survey Nos. 23, 24 and 70 in the year 1999 and thereafter is hereby declared as illegal and void ab initio, on the ground that the draft development plan submitted by CIDCO in respect of the said land has not yet been approved by the State Government as required under Section 115 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act. " The Division Bench has further observed thus : " The action of CIDCO of disposal of land by bulk plots (one acre or more in size) is held to be against the public interest and CIDCO shall not be allowed to resort to such bulk plot sell in future, in respect of the land, in its possession as at present in new Aurangabad area." 10. Admittedly, the plots in question are not in Survey Nos. 23, 24 and 70 and they are also not bulk plots. 11. Only two objections that appear to be weighed with the CIDCO are, firstly, the construction is not completed within the prescribed period and, secondly, that the plots allotted to the petitioner (6) are more than one in number. In so far as first ground is concerned, we find that the petitioner, due to the reasons beyond its control, could not complete the construction within the prescribed period. Undoubtedly, the respondent CIDCO is having a power to extend the period for making the construction on payment of additional lease premium. In so far as the second ground is concerned, the Division Bench in the case of N.R.B. Beering Ltd., through its Dy. General Manager Vs. CIDCO, in Writ Petition No. 2464/2007, vide order dated 29th June 2007, has found that the restriction of not allotting multiple number of plots prior to the decision delivered in Writ Petition No. 2338/1999 and in favour of a Company would not be hit by the orders passed in Writ Petition No. 2338/1999. Undisputedly, the plots are allotted in favour of a Company and much prior to the judgment and order delivered in Writ Petition No. 2338/1999. In so far as the reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the respondent CIDCO, on the order passed by the Division Bench, dated 13th April 2004 in Civil Application No. 7360/2002 is concerned, in our view, the same would not also be applicable, inasmuch as, the said restriction is only for amalgamation or alienation. Admittedly, the petitioner is not seeking amalgamation or alienation in the present case. 12. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner shall file an undertaking, that the plots allotted to them will not be transferred, the construction will be carried out within the time specified by the CIDCO or the planning authority and will be utilized for the purpose for which they have been allotted. In that view of the matter, we find that the stand taken by the CIDCO is not justified. (7) 13. Hence, we pass the following order : (i) Writ Petition No. 616/2007 is allowed. The orders issued by the CIDCO under the provisions of Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Rules, 1960, pursuant to the notices dated 21st September 2006 and 16th October 2006, are quashed and set aside. (ii) Writ Petition Nos. 2417/2007 and 2419/1997 are allowed. The impugned letters dated 7th December 2006 issued by the respondent CIDCO, to the petitioner, are quashed and set aside. (iii) The petitioner shall apply to the respondent CIDCO for grant of "no objection" certificate for grant of building permission by the Corporation. The respondent CIDCO shall consider the said application, in accordance with law, and grant "no objection" certificate on payment of additional lease premium. On the "no objection" certificate being so granted, the petitioner shall make an application to the Corporation for grant of building permission which will be considered by the Corporation in accordance with law. (iv) The petitioner shall also file an undertaking to the CIDCO, that the petitioner shall not transfer the plot, in question, without permission of CIDCO and shall use the same for the purpose for which it is allotted and the petitioner shall complete the construction within a period of one year from the date on which the building permission will be granted. (8) 14. 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/wp616etc