Bombay High Court
Dharmibai Janardan Tandel vs The Managing Director City And ... on 23 September, 2025
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
2025:BHC-AS:43254-DB 8.WP.3705.2023.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3705 of 2023
Mrs. Dharmabai Janardhan Tandel
Through her Constituted Attorney -
Mr. Macchindranath Janardhan Tandel
Home no. 393, at Post - Sarsole
Sector-6, Nerul, Navi Mumbai, Dist. Thane .
Petitioner
Versus
1. Managing Director, City and Industrial
Development Corporation (Maharashtra) Ltd.(CIDCO)
2. Add. Chief Land and Land Survey Officer
(needbase), CIDCO
3. The Chief Controller, Needbased Unauthorised
Construction (Regularisation) Department, CIDCO
4. Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department
5. The Collector, Collector Office, Thane.
Respondents
_______
Mr. Shantanu Raktate a/w. Mr. Amar D. Parsekar, for Petitioner.
Mr. D.A. Athawale, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.
DATE: 23rd September 2025
P.C.:
1. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed
praying for the following substantive reliefs :
a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue of appropriate writ
and/or order, direct the Respondent No.1 to 4 to grant 240
MANISH
Digitally signed by
MANISH
SURESHRAO
sq.mtrs. plot of land to the Petitioner in an around Nerul, Navi
SURESHRAO THATTE
THATTE Date: 2025.10.08
13:20:54 +0530
Mumbai as per his eligibility under 12.5% scheme in specified time
frame.
Page 1 of 8
Manish Thatte
::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2025 22:29:38 :::
8.WP.3705.2023.DOC
b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue of appropriate writ,
direct the Respondent No.1 to 4 to pass necessary orders of
regularizing the unauthorised constructions of the Petitioner
bearing House no. 73 and 74 as per file no. 4+72 of Respondent
no. 1 in specified time frame.
c) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, this
Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain the Respondents authority to
take any coercive action against the unauthorized construction of
the Petitioner.
d) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, this
Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain the Respondent no. 1 thereby
granting 240 sq.mtr. plot of land under 12.5% scheme anywhere in
Navi Mumbai other than Nerul, Navi Mumbai.
e) Interim and ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer (c) and (d)
above be granted;
f) cost of this Appeal be provided for;
g) Such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Authority may
deem fit and proper be granted.
2. The Petitioner who is a senior citizen is aggrieved on account of the
inaction on the part of Respondent nos. 1 to 3 with regard to the regularization of
the need based unauthorized construction and grant of plot of land under the
12.5% Scheme which was sanctioned by Government of Maharashtra through the
Department of Urban Department under Government Resolution dated 6 th March
1990 and 28th October 1998, in respect of the Petitioner's land acquired for the
development of Navi Mumbai Project under 'Village Extension Scheme
(hereinafter referred as 'the scheme') of the project affected persons (hereinafter
referred as 'PAP'). The petitioner's land admeasuring 7 guntha 8 are (795 sq.
mtrs.) situated at village Sarsole, Dist. Thane was acquired for the purpose of Navi
Mumbai Project under such scheme. Respondent no. 1 which is the planning
Page 2 of 8
Manish Thatte
::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2025 22:29:38 :::
8.WP.3705.2023.DOC
authority in the area where the petitioner's land is situated, in pursuance of the
Government Resolution dated 6th March 1990 and 28th October 1994, is
authorized to grant 12.5% developed lands in respect of land acquired for PAP also
an additional 40 sq.mtr. of land was decided to be given to individual land owners.
3. The petitioner's land was acquired under Award no.218 dated 31st
March 1986 by Respondent no. 5. The petitioner in such circumstances had
applied to Respondent no. 1 to grant 12.5% plots of land to the petitioner under
the said scheme on the ground that the petitioner's land was acquired by the said
award and that the Government of Maharashtra had decided to grant implacement
12.5% scheme and also decided to grant 40 sq.mtr. additional land to the PAP. The
Petitioner also informed Respondent no. 1 that since her land was acquired under
the scheme, she had constructed a need based construction sometime in the year
1992, in regard to which the petitioner had submitted several letters between the
year 1990 to 1998 to the Respondent no. 1 and 2 for grant of land under the
12.5% scheme and also for regularization of the need based construction.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner Shri. Raktate has drawn the Court's
attention to the letters dated 16 th December 1995 and 14th January 1998 addressed
to Respondent no.2 wherein the petitioner along with her sons also requested
Respondent no.2 to regularize her need based construction as per her eligibility as
PAP and also to issue NOC for the repairs of construction from the Navi Mumbai
Municipal Corporation (NMMC). In the said letter the petitioner also requested
for land under the 12.5% scheme. The learned counsel for the petitioner however
submits that till date the petitioner has not received any reply to the Petitioner's
Page 3 of 8
Manish Thatte
::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2025 22:29:38 :::
8.WP.3705.2023.DOC
letters which were concerned primarily in regard to the regularization of her need
based unauthorized construction and for allotment of land under the 12.5%
scheme. It is submitted that, in fact the Petitioner received a notice from
Respondent no. 1 dated 21st May 1998 under Section 53(1) of the Maharashtra
Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred as 'MRTP Act') asking her
to restore the structure to its original state with respect to the unauthorized need
based construction failing which, the same would be demolished. The said notice
however was issued under a wrong survey number.
5. Learned counsel for Petitioner further submits that petitioner has filed
RTI applications regarding the status of the grant of her land under 12.5% scheme
and also in respect of regularization of her need based unauthorized construction.
On 6th March 2006 the RTI applications of the petitioner was disposed of
recording that the Petitioner was only entitled to 40 sq. mtrs. per person and
therefore she along with her sons was qualified only for an area of 240 sq. mtrs.. In
reply to petitioner's RTI applications, it was informed to the petitioner that the
need based unauthorized construction which stands in the name of the petitioner
and her sons needs to be regularized.
6. We are informed that on 3rd October 2008 a Policy Resolution no.
9949 was issued by Respondent no. 1 named 'PACKAGE 2008' to regularize the
need based unauthorized construction at 75% of the reserved price at lease rate
which are PACKAGE 2008 within 200 meters of the village gaothan, and further
that the area of regularization will not be deducted from the due area under the
PACKAGE 2008 scheme. This PACKAGE 2008 scheme was approved by
Page 4 of 8
Manish Thatte
::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2025 22:29:38 :::
8.WP.3705.2023.DOC
Respondent no. 4 and in pursuance thereof, the Respondent no. 1 passed revised
Resolution no. 10853 approving the `PACKAGE 2008 scheme'. However, in the
meanwhile petitioner received notices under section 53(1) of the MRTP Act with a
wrong survey number mentioned in such notice for the removal of unauthorized
need based construction. In spite of the petitioner's repeated followup for
regularization of the unauthorized need based construction and further for the
grant of land under the 12.5% scheme, the respondents have failed to act upon it
and the same is causing grave prejudice to the petitioner.
7. The Court is concerned as the petitioner who is a senior citizen, cannot
be made to run from pillar to post in seeking her entitlement of the land as
contemplated under the 12.5% scheme, as also under the PACKAGE 2008 scheme,
which the Respondents themselves have approved and sanctioned. It is rather
surprising that, in spite of the Letter dated 22nd January 2010 of the Respondent
no. 4 approving the resolution of Respondent no.1 i.e. PACKAGE 2008 scheme
and also in view of government resolution dated 25 th February 2022, the petitioner
is yet to receive grant of the land under the 12.5% scheme and PACKAGE 2008
scheme.
8. In fact the civil dispute between the Petitioner and some of her relatives
has been dismissed in the year 2016 by the Ld. 3 rd Joint Civil Judge, Vashi for want
of prosecution in respect of the claims made by Petitioner's relatives to the
aforesaid land.
9 . An Affidavit on behalf of Respondent no. 2 dated 11 th February 2024
has been filed wherein the following contentions have been made :
Page 5 of 8
Manish Thatte
::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2025 22:29:38 :::
8.WP.3705.2023.DOC
4. I say that the petitioners have demanded the plot of 40 square
meters for each family member of Mrs. Dharmibai Janardan Tandel
aggregating to total 240 square meters for 6 people. In this regard,
I say that as per 12.5% policy of CIDCO, the petitioners can be
entitled to 68 square meters of land at village Sarsole and hence, as
per G.R dated 28-10-1994 issued by the respondent no.4, each of
six family members of Mrs. Dharmibai J. Tandel may become
entitled to allotment of plots admeasuring 40 square meters of
land. However, before declaring the petitioners to be entitled to
receive six plots of 40 meters each, it is necessary to verify whether
any other land of the petitioners situated elsewhere is acquired by
CIDCO or whether the petitioners have availed of the benefit of
12.5% scheme or have received the compensation anytime before.
5. I further say that it is also necessary to verify village form 7x12
and Form 8 pertaining to the said land spread over three survey
numbers being Survey nos. 2/10, 55/3 and 63/7 situated in village
Sarsole totally admeasuring 708 square meters as also the present
status of the illegal structures of the petitioners. It is pertinent to
note that as per hand written remark on page 88 of the petition, it
appears that previously at the time of visit of the concerned officers
of CIDCO for submitting the status report about the unauthorized
construction made by the petitioners, the petitioners had
demolished the said unauthorized construction. However at the
time of subsequent visit in October, 2022, the said unauthorized
constructions were found to have been once again erected by the
petitioner and the petitioners are using them as the furniture shop
and for storage. This is evident from the said handwritten remark
of the concerned officers of CIDCO made on 14-10-2022.
6. I say that before deciding the eligibility of the petitioners for
allotment of 40 square meters plots, they are required to demolish
their unauthorized constructions and hand over the possession of
the area beneath the said the unauthorized structures and the
adjacent area and obtain the possession receipt for the same. Until
that is done, petitioners' eligibility for allotment of 40 square
meters of plots cannot be considered.
7. The petitioners have also prayed for regularization of their
unauthorized structures. In this regard, I say that in the year 2008,
CIDCO had proposed the regularization of the need based
residential structures constructed by the project affected people
(PAP) in the Gaothan areas on certain terms and conditions. The
said proposal was apparently accepted by the respondent no.4
government of Maharashtra vide its letter dated 22-1-2010 of the
respondent no. 4 speaks about regularization of non-residential
Page 6 of 8
Manish Thatte
::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2025 22:29:38 :::
8.WP.3705.2023.DOC
structures. In fact, the said letter dated 22-1-2010 categorically
states that the non-residential structures of the PAPs should not be
regularized. Hence, in view of the above mentioned handwritten
remark dated 14-10-2022 of the concerned officers of CIDCO, the
said unauthorized structures of the petitioners which are the non-
residential structures cannot be regularized.
8. I therefore say that once the petitioner comply with the aforesaid
requirements, the decision about their eligibility or otherwise for
the allotment of 40 square meters of plots to them can be
determined by CIDCO and after the aforesaid compliance and
scrutiny of their documents, if they are found eligible for such
allotment, CIDCO can allot to them plots of 40 square meters each
as per the lottery system.
10. In the backdrop of the above facts and after hearing learned counsel for
the parties and on perusal of all the documents and the affidavit in reply (supra)
filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2, in our view the petitioner being a senior
citizen who is entitled for a land under 12.5% scheme and PACKAGE 2008
scheme is being deprived of the same for the last many years and is being made to
run from pillar to post by the Respondents to receive her legitimate entitlement.
The petitioner's representation/letters dated 16th December 1995 and 14th January
1998 are still pending with Respondent No.1. The Petitioner has been following
up with various authorities with respect to her grievance.
11. In this view of the matter, we pass the following orders which will meet
the ends of justice.
ORDER
(i) We direct the Respondent no. 1 to consider and decide the application/letters dated 16th December 1995 and 14th January 1998 after considering the material on record filed by the Petitioner in accordance with Page 7 of 8 Manish Thatte ::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2025 22:29:38 :::
8.WP.3705.2023.DOC law, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date this order is made available to the said Respondent by the Petitioner;
(ii) In the event the Petitioner is held to be entitled for allotment of the 12.5% land in that event the Petitioner be granted possession of the 12.5% land within four weeks of the decision on the Petitioner's application/agreement;
(iii) Let the parties be heard;
(iv) All rights and contentions of the parties are expressly kept open;
(v) The petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Page 8 of 8
Manish Thatte
::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2025 22:29:38 :::