Bombay High Court
M/S. Bhosale Homes Thru Partner Shri. ... vs City And Industrial Development ... on 20 March, 2025
Author: A. S. Gadkari
Bench: A. S. Gadkari
2025:BHC-AS:13061-DB
sbw 20-aswp-4435-2022-J .doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4435 OF 2022
M/s. Bhosale Homes ]
A partnership firm duly registered ]
Under the Indian Partnership Act ]
Having its registered office at A-102 ]
Shiv Chambers, Plot No.21, Belapur ]
Navi Mumbai-400 604, through its ]
Partner Shri Babasaheb Mahadev Bhosale. ]
] ...Petitioners.
V/s
1. City and Industrial Development ]
Corporation fo Maharashtra Ltd. ]
A company incorporated under ]
The Companies Act, 1956, having ]
its registered office at CIDCO ]
Bhavan, CBD Belapur, ]
Navi Mumbai-400 614. ]
2. The Estate Officer (CIDCO) ]
1st floor, CIDCO Bhavan ]
CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai-400 714. ]
3. The Chief Land & Survey Officer ]
(CIDCO) 7th floor, CIDCO Bhavan ]
CBD Belapur, Navi Mmbai-400 614. ]
4. Senior Planner (BP) and Town ]
Planning Officer, Navi Mumbai ]
Having his office at 4th floor ]
Raigad Bhavan, CBD Belapur ]
Navi Mumbai-400 714. ]
Digitally
signed by
5. Addl. Town Planning Officer (BP) ]
ASHWINI
ASHWINI
H GAJAKOSH
4th floor, Raigad Bhavan, CBD ]
GAJAKOSH Date:
2025.03.20
20:09:13
Belapur, Navi Mumbai-400 714. ]
+0530
1/6
::: Uploaded on - 20/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2025 22:16:02 :::
sbw 20-aswp-4435-2022-J .doc
6. The District Collector, ]
Raigad, District Collector's office ]
At & Post: Alibaug, ]
Dist-Raigad - 402 201. ]
7. The State of Maharashtra ]
(Notice to be served to the Govt. ]
Pleader, High Court Writ Cell ]
Mumbai). ] ...Respondents.
Mr. Abhay Khandeparkar, Senior Advocate, a/w Mr. Sujay Gawade, Ms.
Sumedha Dhopate, Ms, Mudhita Pawar, Ms. Manasi Sawant i/by Shree &
Co., for the Petitioners.
Mr. G.S. Hegde, Senior Advocate, a/w Ms. P. M. Bhansali for Respondent-
CIDCO.
Ms. M.P. Thakur, AGP, for the Respondent Nos. 6 & 7-State.
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 10th March, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 20th March, 2025.
JUDGMENT (Per Kamal Khata, J.):
-
1) By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus against the City and Industrial
Development Corporation of Maharashtra (CIDCO) directing them to
withdraw the impugned Stop Work Notice issued to them, restraining from
carrying out any construction activity on Plot No. 15, Sector 9, admeasuring
950 sq.meters at Ulwe, Navi Mumbai.
2) The Petitioners are the lessee's of the said plot. They acquired the
leasehold rights under a Lease Agreement dated 6 th August, 2008 between
sbw 20-aswp-4435-2022-J .doc
CIDCO, Shri Krishna Bama Thakur and Shri Hanumant Bama Thakur
registered on 15th September 2008. The original owners' names were
recorded along with the Petitioners names by CIDCO under its Letter of
Allotment (LoA) dated 4th August 2008. This plot came to be allotted under
the Scheme of CIDCO, popularly known as the '12.5% Scheme' introduced
by the State in the year 1990 and 1994, under its two Resolutions bearing
No. LQN/1985/1710/CR-217/85/NAVI-10 dated 6th March 1990 and No.
CAD/1094/2094/PRAK-287/NAVI-10 dated 28th October 1994. These
Schemes were issued by the Urban Development Department for
distribution of the developed plot of lands to the Project Affected Persons
(PAP) whose lands came to be acquired by the State Government and
vested in CIDCO for development of twin city of Navi Mumbai. A final
Order was issued by CIDCO on 16 th September 2008 and the Petitioners
since then have been in continuous, actual and physical possession of the
subject plot.
3) The Petitioners proposed to develop the said plot in the name of
'Bhosale Homes' through their Licensed Architects M/s. Aakar Siddhi and
consequently submitted a Development Proposal dated 6 th March 2014 that
was received by CIDCO on 14th March 2014 along with plans, designs,
specifications and a schematic layout to the Respondent No.2 for their
Commencement Certificate of the said project. The Petitioners, however
sbw 20-aswp-4435-2022-J .doc
received a Stop Work Notice on 31st August 2016 and not only that, their
Development Proposal was rejected. The only justification, the Notice gave
was that, the subject plot of land was allotted to one trust named Sir
Mohammed Yusuf Trust under the 12.5% Scheme. It is in these
circumstances that, the present Petition is filed for the reliefs as noted
above.
4) Mr. Abhay Khandeparkar, learning senior counsel appearing for
Petitioners submits that, Petitioners have incurred and invested crores of
rupees for land and transfer charges to CIDCO, in addition to the lease
premium, stamp duty and for appointing Architect and Structural
Engineers. He submits that, the CIDCO had issued a similar Stop Work
Notice to one M/s. Sai Krupa Builders, who had challenged it by Writ
Petition No.952 of 2015 where similar questions of facts were involved. A
Division Bench of this Court after hearing the parties, passed an Order
dated 26th February 2018, quashing and setting aside the said Stop Work
Notice. He submits that, in the said Petition too, the Stop Work Notice
alleged that, the land belonged to the predecessors of the Petitioners i.e. Sir
Mohammed Yusuf Haji Ismail Trust. He therefore submits that, this Petition
being similar to one M/s. Sai Krupa Builders and therefore, it would be in
the interest of justice to quash the Stop Work Notice, as there is error
apparent on the face of the record. He submits that, the entire action to
sbw 20-aswp-4435-2022-J .doc
issue the Stop Work Notice is against the principles of natural justice. That,
the entire action is arbitrary without issuing them a notice and affording
them a hearing. He submits that, the prospective purchasers have already
booked residential tenements and commercial units in the project and in
turn have availed loans from financial institutions and banks. Therefore,
issuance of such Stop Work Notice, without any rhyme or reason, would
cause immense hardship not only to the Petitioners but also to the third-
party purchasers and financial institutions. He therefore submits that, the
Petition be made absolute.
5) Mr. Hegde learned senior counsel representing CIDCO submits
that, this Petition deserves to be dismissed inasmuch as there are disputed
questions of facts involved. He submits that, the State Government has
acquired the Petitioners' land and have vested in CIDCO for development.
They were informed by letter dated 9th November 2012 that Sir Mohammed
Haji Yusuf Trust was the owner of the concerned land and the Petitioners
have no right, title and interest in the property. It is based on the
instructions that, they have issued this Stop Work Notice and in fact
rejected the proposal.
6) We have heard both the counsels and have perused the papers
including the Judgment in the case of M/s. Sai Kripa Developers v/s. CIDCO
dated 26th February 2018.
sbw 20-aswp-4435-2022-J .doc
7) According to us, judgment in case of Sai Kripa Developers (supra)
will not assist the Petitioners inasmuch as in that case CIDCO had not
disputed the fact that, the Petitioners predecessor in title was a tenant in
respect of the land belonging to Sir Mohammed Yusuf Haji Ismail Trust.
8) In this case, the Respondents have disputed that fact based on the
letter received from Respondent No. 6-Collector. Thus, the issuance of the
Stop Work Notice and rejection of the development permission to the
Petitioners by the letter dated 31 st August 2016 cannot be faulted. In view
of the above, we find that, this would be a case where there is a dispute
with regard to the title of the land, of which rights will have to be
adjudicated before the jurisdictional civil Court and cannot be adjudicated
in our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9) We accordingly dismiss the Writ Petition by granting liberty to the
Petitioners to avail the remedy before the Civil Court, if so advised.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)
