Bombay High Court
Abdulgani Rasul Inamdar & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 12 July, 2017
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
1 WP 3753 of 2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Writ Petition No. 3753 of 2000
1) Abdul Gani Rasul Inamdar,
Age 44 years, Occu: Service
R/o Aurangabad.
2) Chandrabhan Taterao Rajdeo
Age 36 years, Occu: Service
R/o Aurangabad.
3) Asaram Mahadu Khandare,
Age 32 years, Occu: Service
R/o Aurangabad.
4) Jagannath Shankarrao Sonwane,
Age 37 years, Occu: Service
R/o Aurangabad.
5) Satling Tukaram Waghole,
Age 35 years, Occu: Service
R/o Aurangabad.
6) Nanabhau Sapadu Bagul,
Age 33 years, Occu: Service
R/o Aurangabad.
7) Pandharinath Ramrao Shinde,
Age 34 years, Occu: Service
R/o Aurangabad.
8) Subhash Jagannath Rindhe,
Age 36 years, Occu: Service
R/o Aurangabad.
9) Balasaheb Appsaheb Shelar,
Age 37 years, Occu: Service
R/o Aurangabad.
::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:35:04 :::
2 WP 3753 of 2000
10) Gangadhar Panditrao Ghorbhand,
Age 33 years, Occu: Service
R/o Aurangabad.
11) Suresh Vithalrao Choudhari,
Age 36 years, Occu: Service
R/o Aurangabad.
12) Bhagwan s/o Meethu Borade,
Age 34 years, Occu: Service
R/o Aurangabad.
13) Gulab s/o Panditrao Pajai,
Age 38 years, Occu: Service
R/o Aurangabad.
14) K.B. Patil,
Age 40 years, Occu: Service
R/o Aurangabad.
15) Sudam Vithalrao Autade,
Age 37 years, Occu: Service
R/o Aurangabad.
16) Dattu s/o Bhaurao Sangle,
Age 39 years, Occu: Service
R/o Aurangabad.
17) Jagannath s/o Shamrao Kale,
Age 35 years, Occu: Service
R/o Aurangabad. .. Petitioners.
Versus
1) The State of Maharashtra.
(deleted as per order
dated 13-9-2000)
2) Maharashtra Housing and Area
Development Authority,
Griha Nirman Authority,
Bandra (E), Bombay 400 51
Through its Secretary.
::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:35:04 :::
3 WP 3753 of 2000
3) Maharashtra Housing and Area
Development Authority,
Aurangabad, Opp. Baba Petrol
Pump, CBS Road,
Aurangabad,
Through its Chief Officer,
Aurangabad. .. Respondents.
----
Shri. Aashish T. Jadhavar, Advocate, for petitioner Nos.1
and 5.
Shri. A.S. Shinde, Assistant Government Pleader, for
State of Maharashtra.
Shri. C.V. Thombre, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 & 3.
----
Coram: T.V. NALAWADE &
SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.
Date : 12 July 2017
JUDGMENT:
1) The petition is filed for giving directions to
respondent Nos.2 and 3 to allot houses/tenements to the
petitioners as per the advertisement dated 21-3-1991
published by the respondents. Learned counsel Shri.
Jadhavar for petitioner Nos.1 and 5 and the learned
counsel for the respondents are heard. The counsels for
other petitioners who have filed separate appearance did
not turn up. As the contentions of all the petitioners are
4 WP 3753 of 2000
similar, the petition is being decided on merits for all the
petitioners.
2) On 21-3-1991 respondent No.3, MHADA
published advertisement for allotment of tenements at
Tisgaon, Aurangabad. It is the contention of the
petitioners that in response to the advertisement they had
submitted their applications for getting the tenements and
their names were shown in the list of the persons who
were entitled to get the tenements as per the scheme. It is
contended that the petitioners had deposited the initial
amount as mentioned in the advertisement and also as
mentioned in subsequent correspondence. It is contended
by the petitioners that on 18-3-1993 the respondents
made correspondence with the petitioners informing that
the price of the tenements was increased. It is contended
by petitioners that by a correspondence dated 31-10-1998
the increased price was informed and the mode of
payment was also informed. It is contended that the
petitioners are entitled to get tenements as per the price
published in the advertisement but the price was
increased for no reason and so direction needs to be given
5 WP 3753 of 2000
to the respondents to give the tenements at the rate
initially informed.
3) When the petition was filed a direction was
sought to the effect that the respondents should make
construction as per the scheme published. During
arguments it was submitted that the construction was
completed, allotment was also made to the persons who
had duly applied and who had paid the amount as per the
scheme.
4) The submissions made show that at present in
the aforesaid scheme which was published on 21-3-1991
no tenement is available which can be allotted to the
petitioners. Some record is produced by the learned
counsel for the petitioners which is in respect of the
petitioners like Abdul Gani, Satling Waghole and
Nanabhau Bagul. This correspondence shows that some
amount was paid prior to 1998 and some amount was paid
in 1998. The correspondence is produced to show that
due to increase in the land cost which was given by
CIDCO the respondents were required to increase the cost
6 WP 3753 of 2000
of tenement. The mode of payment was mentioned in the
correspondence. Admittedly the petitioners did no make
payment as per the said mode. They were insisting that
the amount which was published in the initial scheme in
the year 1991 can be recovered from the petitioners and
more amount cannot be taken for allotment of the
tenement.
5) This Court has carefully gone through the
correspondence in which the conditions of the scheme are
mentioned. The record shows that approximate price of
the tenement was published in the year 1991 and at
least on two occasions the price was increased. In view
of the condition mentioned in the advertisement it can be
said that the respondents were entitled to increase the
price. As the petitioners were not ready to pay more, the
tenements were not given to them.
6) The question remains about the amount which
is already paid by the petitioners. The record at least in
respect of three petitioners is produced as mentioned
above, and apparently they have paid more than
7 WP 3753 of 2000
Rs.6800/-. There is possibility that the other petitioners
had also paid the amount. The record does not show that
any right was kept to forfeit the amount deposited by the
petitioner. Such amount needs to be treated as deposit
and so if the tenement is not given, the amount needs to
be returned to the said persons. Only to that extent, this
Court holds that relief can be granted and the
respondents need to be made to return the amount with
interest. In the result, following order :--
7) The petition is partly allowed. Respondent
Nos.2 and 3 are to return the amount of the petitioners to
whom tenement is not allotted, with the interest at the
rate of 9% per annum and the interest will be payable
from 1 January 1999 till the date of payment. Rule is made
absolute in those terms.
Sd/- Sd/-
(SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.) (T.V. NALAWADE, J.)
rsl
