KONKAN KRISHI VIKAS PRATISHTANversusCITY AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORP. AND ORS.

                          1/6                    11 IA.6194.2026.odt

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

            INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6194 OF 2026
                            IN
               WRIT PETITION NO. 3001 OF 2016
                           WITH
               WRIT PETITION NO. 3001 OF 2016

Konkan Krishi Vikas Pratishtan
A Public Charitable Organization
Through Its Treasure Shekhar
Savant Through its Treasurer Mr.
Shekhar Savant Having their
registered of4ce at Flat no 1,
Krishnakunj, Sahakar Marg, TPS
Road No 5, Vileparle East, Mumbai-
400 057                            .. Applicant/Petitioner
    Versus
1. City & Industrial Development
Corp. CIDCO Bhavan, C.B.D Belapur,
New Mumbai- 400 614

2. The Manager (Town Services-III)
CIDCO Bhavan, C.B.D Belapur, New
Mumbai- 400 614

3. Smt. Pradnya Saravade
Chief Vigilance Of4cer, CIDCO
Bhavan,     C.B.D   Belapur, New
Mumbai- 400 614                  .. Respondents

                               …
Mr. Vinay Bhate, for the Applicant/Petitioner.
Mr. G. S. Hegde, Senior Advocate a/w Sadhan Dhamane, Ms P.
M. Bhansali and Mr. Arafat Siddique, for the Respondent-
CIDCO.
                              ...
                  CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
                          ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ.

                   DATED: 11th AUGUST, 2026

Rushikesh
                           2/6                    11 IA.6194.2026.odt

Judgment [Per Bharati Dangre, J.]:-

1.     The Application seek restoration of the Writ Petition,
which came to be dismissed for want of prosecution by order
dated 17.06.2026.

2.     Heard the learned counsel for the Applicant and perused
the Application, which has offered the justi4cation as to why
the proceedings could not be attended on the date on which the
Writ Petition was listed before this Court.

       Being satis4ed with the bona 4des, the Writ Petition is
restored by setting aside the order of dismissal. The
Application is made absolute.

3.     The Writ Petition, on being restored, is taken up for
hearing by consent of the respective counsel.

       The Writ Petition is 4led being aggrieved by the
impugned termination notice dated 24.02.2016 issued by
Respondent No. 2 in relation to the allotment of plot No.4-A at
Kharghar, and the speci4c ground raised in the Writ Petition is
non-adherence to the principles of natural justice before
passing the impugned order.

       The learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Hegde, representing the
City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO), would
invite our attention to the allotment of land in favour of M/s.
Konkan Krishi Vikas Pratishtan, the Petitioner, on 28.01.2008,
and from its perusal, it is evident that an area admeasuring
16698.35 sq.mtr. in Sector-5, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai, was
allotted for development of nursery, vegetable and Hower
farming, subject to the terms and conditions set out therein.


Rushikesh
                             3/6                    11 IA.6194.2026.odt

       The grant of lease speci4cally provided that the land
shall be used for the purpose for which it is granted, and it also
contemplated that the internal development will have to be
carried out by the lessee at its own cost.

       This allotment was followed by a further agreement of
Leave and License executed between the Petitioner and CIDCO,
which clearly contemplated that the Leave and License
Agreement shall be initially for a period of 33 months, i.e. from
26.03.2010 to 25.12.2012, with a clause that it shall be further
extended for a period of 98 months if the performance during
the initial period of 33 months was found to the satisfaction of
the Corporation.

       However, the said agreement also clearly permitted the
termination of the Leave and License Agreement at the
instance of Corporation and to revoke the license or
permission on the happening of any of the contingencies,
namely; i) if the Licensee commit a breach of the Agreement;
(ii) if the land is required by the Corporation or any other
authority for a public purpose.      Needless to state that the
agreement also contemplated that before revoking the license
or permission in pursuance to the foregoing clause, the
Corporation shall serve one month’s notice in writing and, on
the expiry of the said notice, the Leave and License Agreement
shall stand revoked and the Licensee shall cease to enter upon
or use the land or do anything permissible under the
Agreement.

4.     The Petitioner, being aggrieved by the notice of
termination dated 24.02.2016, approached this Court by 4ling
the present Writ Petition.

Rushikesh
                           4/6                     11 IA.6194.2026.odt

       The termination notice dated 24.02.2016 has a reference
to the Leave and License Agreement and it also contained an
accusation that, upon receipt of the complaint regarding the
irregularities in the plot allotted, an investigation was carried
out, which revealed that a third-party interest was created in
the plot leased to the Petitioner by subletting it to M/s. Green
World, which was alleged to be operating through the said plot,
and the plants were sold by M/s. Green World.

       Reference is also made to a mandatory Clause No. 6 of
the Leave and License Agreement dated 03.12.2010, which
clearly prohibited any sub-letting, underletting, assignment or
otherwise parting with the possession of any of the premises
or any part thereof, and it was, therefore, indicated that the
above action of the Petitioner was in clear violation of the
terms and conditions of the Leave and License Agreement
executed between the parties. Though a Show Cause Notice
was issued, the termination order record that no submission
was received, which prompted the Vice Chairman and
Managing Director to terminate the Leave and License
Agreement, and the Petitioner was directed to handover
vacant and peaceful possession of the plot on 09.03.2016. In
the event of failure to do so, it was indicated that the
Corporation shall be constrained to take suitable legal
recourse.

5.     It is this order which was subjected to challenge in the
Writ Petition, and an interim order came to be granted in
favour of the Petitioner in terms of prayer clause (b) of the
Writ Petition, which, in effect, resulted in the grant of stay to
the    operation,   execution    and   implementation      of    the

Rushikesh
                            5/6                     11 IA.6194.2026.odt

termination order dated 24.02.2016, and the said order was
extended from time to time.

6.     Inviting our attention to the Leave and License
Agreement, the learned Senior Counsel has pointed out that
the said Agreement, as per clause No. 9 thereof, was to remain
valid from 26.03.2010 to 25.12.2012, and it was also within
the power of the lessor to extend it for a further period of 98
months, subject to a proviso that the performance of the lessee
during the initial period of 33 months was to the satisfaction of
the Corporation.

       It is a different aspect that a Show Cause Notice was
issued for breach of the condition, but we do not deem it
necessary to get into the aspect, as, considering the maximum
period for which the lease was granted, i.e. the extension for a
period of 98 months to be followed from 25.12.2012, the period
comes to an end in 2018, and beyond that, the lease cannot
continue as there is no further extension.

       Though the learned counsel for the Petitioner has
vehemently urged before us that, before the termination notice
was issued, the procedure that is prescribed was not adhered
to and no opportunity was afforded to him to respond to the
said Show Cause Notice, in the wake of the fact that the period
of lease itself has come to an end in 2018, it is not necessary
for us to get into the said aspect, and in any case, the Petitioner
has enjoyed the fruits of the impugned order till the year 2018,
but beyond that, he cannot. In such circumstances, since we
are informed that CIDCO has already served a notice upon the
Petitioner to handover the possession of the leased plot on
21.08.2026 in terms of the communication dated 29.07.2026,

Rushikesh
                                                    6/6                    11 IA.6194.2026.odt

                       we direct that the Petitioner shall abide by the directions.

                              We make it clear that, since it is already held that the
                       Petitioner is not entitled to continue with the lease on expiry
                       of the period of 98 months computed from the year 2012,
                       which has come to an end in the year 2018, we direct that, if
                       the Petitioner fail to handover the possession, CIDCO shall be
                       entitled to take forcible possession of the same.

                              Needless to state that the Petitioner shall be entitled to
                       make a fresh application to CIDCO for allotment of the said plot
                       on a leave and license basis, and we expect CIDCO to consider
                       it in terms of its policy.

                              With the aforesaid directions, the Writ Petition stand
                       disposed of.

                              The letter tendered before us is handed over to Mr.
                       Shekhar Savant, Treasurer of Konkan Krishi Vikas Pratishtan,
                       who is present in Court.



                       (ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.)                 (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

          Digitally
          signed by
          RUSHIKESH
RUSHIKESH VISHNU
VISHNU    PATIL
PATIL     Date:
          2026.08.13
          20:13:27
          +0530




                       Rushikesh