Bombay High Court
Deepak Shivaji Khamkar And Ors vs City And Industrial Development ... on 20 February, 2025
Author: M. S. Sonak
Bench: M. S. Sonak
2025:BHC-AS:8514-DB
Sayyed 5-WP.11112.2023.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.11112 OF 2023
Deepak Shivaji Khamkar & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
City and Industrial Development
Corporation & Ors. ...Respondents
_____________________________________________________
Mr. S. S. Kulkarni a/w Mr. Pranjal M. Khatavkar for Petitioners.
Mr. Rohit Sakhadeo for Respondent No.1-CIDCO
Ms. S. R. Crasto, AGP for Respondent No.3-State.
_____________________________________________________
CORAM : M. S. Sonak &
Jitendra Jain, JJ.
DATED : 20 February 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per M. S. Sonak, J.):-
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request
of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
3. This petition challenges the communication dated 17 March
2023, in which the first Respondent rejected the Petitioners'
representation that 12.5% of the acquired land should be awarded
under the CIDCO Scheme.
4. The Petitioners had made a representation for expeditious
decision on their representation regarding allotment. Since that
representation was not being disposed of, the Petitioners instituted Writ
Petition No.5385 of 2022 in this Court and same was disposed of by
order dated 29 November 2022 directing the concerned Respondents to
take a decision on Petitioners' representation in accordance with law
and policy, expeditiously, preferably within four months.
Sayyed 5-WP.11112.2023.docx
5. Based on the above directions, the first Respondent, by the
impugned communication dated 17 March 2023, invited the Petitioners'
attention to Government Resolution (GR) dated 6 March 1990 (Clause
J), which, in the opinion of the first Respondent, might constitute a bar
to the Petitioner's claim. After expressing such tentative opinion,
however, the first Respondent directed the Petitioners to submit their
say and documents based upon which the first Respondent would be in
a position to make an appropriate decision.
6. The Petitioner, instead of submitting the say and documents,
has rushed to this Court interpreting the second-last paragraph of the
impugned communication dated 17 March 2023 as a final opinion of
the first Respondent. From the context, the second last paragraph had
only invited the Petitioners' attention to the GR dated 6 March 1990,
and further, a tentative opinion was expressed.
7. Mr. Kulkarni invited our attention to Clause J of the GR dated
6 March 1990, which reads as follows:-
"J) The Agricultural land owners who do not themselves cultivate their
own lands ('Absentee landlords') the salt works owner, the public
Trusts and other Institutions shall not get the benefit of the said
land allotment scheme."
8. Based on the above, Mr. Kulkarni submitted that this Clause
applies to 'absentee landlords', public trusts and other institutions who
do not cultivate the lands themselves. He submitted that the Petitioners
were adjudged as "agricultural tenants" of the acquired land. The
Petitioners were, therefore, no absentee landlords or Trusts or
Institutions. Accordingly, he submitted that Clause J of the GR dated
6 March 1990 would not apply to the Petitioners.
9. The Petitioners were called upon to submit their
say/explanation in this regard. The Petitioners were also allowed to
Sayyed 5-WP.11112.2023.docx
place on record documents showing how they were cultivating the
acquired lands and that they could not be classified as "absentee
landlords". Instead of availing of this opportunity, they have rushed to
this Court based on the tentative opinion expressed by the first
Respondent.
10. Therefore, we clarify that the opinion expressed by the first
Respondent in the second-last paragraph of the impugned
communication dated 17 March 2023 is tentative and, in any event,
must be regarded as a tentative opinion.
11. Mr. Kulkarni states that the Petitioners will now file their
explanations and documents with the first Respondent within four
weeks from today. We direct the first Respondent or any other
competent authority in this regard to consider such explanation and
documents and also grant the Petitioners an opportunity of personal
hearing before disposing of the Petitioners' representation dated
2 December 2022. The representation must be disposed of by passing a
speaking order and considering all the Petitioners' contentions,
including contentions that Clause J of the GR dated 6 March 1990 does
not apply. All parties' contentions are left open to be decided by the
first Respondent in the first instance.
12. The representation must now be disposed of as expeditiously
as possible and in any event on or before 31 May 2025. This is provided
the Petitioners' files reply, documents, etc., on or before 28 March 2025.
13. The Rule in this petition is disposed of in the above terms
without any cost order.
14. All concerned must act on an authenticated copy of this order.
(Jitendra Jain, J.) (M. S. Sonak, J.)
Signed by: Sayyed Saeed Ali
Date: 24/02/2025 11:12:14
