Bombay High Court
Shikha V. Jhunjhunwala vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 1 March, 2024
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
*1* 901wp1637o24
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
901 WRIT PETITION NO. 1637 OF 2024
SHIKHA V. JHUNJHUNWALA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS
...
Shri Devdatt P. Palodkar, Advocate for the Petitioner
Shri S.K. Tambe, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 8
Shri Vaibhav P. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent Nos.5 to 7
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
&
R.M. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE :- 01st March, 2024
Per Court :-
1. This is a motion for speaking to the minutes of the
order dated 23.02.2024.
2. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that
since common orders were passed in identical matters, he had
also agreed for a common order. However, one sentence "there
are certain internal disputes between the Petitioner and his
relatives", is not applicable to his case.
4. The above sentence be deleted from paragraph 3 of
the order dated 23.02.2024. The said paragraph would now read
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
*2* 901wp1637o24
as under:-
"The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Waluj
Notified Area, CIDCO submits that the CIDCO had offered TDR
to the Petitioner, which is not accepted."
5. It is submitted that Shri Palodkar, the learned
Advocate, had appeared on behalf of the Petitioner and Shri
Deshmukh, the learned Advocate, had appeared on behalf of
Respondent Nos.5 to 7. The learned AGP had appeared on behalf
of Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 8. Appearance clause needs to be
corrected. Hence, the appearance clause be corrected.
6. It is further mentioned that in paragraph Nos.4 and
5, the word "Corporation" needs to be replaced by the word
"CIDCO". As such, the replacement be carried out.
7. In view of the above, this motion is allowed.
Corrections be carried out accordingly and a corrected order be
uploaded.
kps ( R.M. JOSHI, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
*3* 901wp1637o24
(This order stands corrected and uploaded in view of the order dated 01.03.2024 passed on
the motion for speaking to the minutes of the order.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Mrs. Shikha V. Jhunjhunwala ....Petitioner
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & Others .....Respondents
.....
Shri Devdatt P. Palodkar, Advocate for the Petitioner
Shri S.K. Tambe, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 8
Shri Vaibhav P. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent Nos.5 to 7
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND
R. M. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 23rd FEBRUARY, 2024.
PER COURT :
1. The CIDCO, Waluj Mahanagar, Chhatrapati
Sambhaji Nagar has entered the affidavit-in-reply dated 23 rd
February, 2024.
2. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective
parties.
3. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
Waluj Notified Area, CIDCO submits that the CIDCO had
offered TDR to the Petitioner, which is not accepted.
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
*4* 901wp1637o24
4. The issue raised by the CIDCO is no longer res
integra in the light of the Full Bench judgment of this Court
in Shree Vinayak Builders & Developers Vs. the State of
Maharashtra and Others, (2022) 4 Mh.L.J. 739 : (2022)
DGLS (Bom.) 2061, keeping in view the law laid down in
Girnar Traders Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, AIR
(2007) SC 3180 : (2007) 7 SCC 555. As such, offering
TDR is not considered to be a step towards acquisition of the
land which is under reservation.
5. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is
allowed. The CIDCO shall forward the proposal to
Respondent No. 1 for releasing the land from reservation,
within 30 days from today. Needless to state, Respondent
No. 1 shall thereafter issue the necessary Notification within
a period of 90 days.
( R. M. JOSHI) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE)
JUDGE JUDGE
dyb
