Bombay High Court

SHRI VITTHAL RUKHMAI BHAKT MANDAL SEVABHAVI VISHVASTHA SANSTHA AURANGABAD THROUGH PRESIDENTversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: N B SURYAWANSHI VAISHALI PATIL JADHAV

Holding

The petition to quash the 2010 resolution and allotment was dismissed as there was no merit to set aside the earlier allocation.

Summary

The petitioner, a charitable trust, filed a writ petition seeking to quash a 2010 Board Resolution and allotment letter by CIDCO that allocated a plot in New Aurangabad to another trust (Respondent No.3) and to have the plot allotted to the petitioner instead. The petitioner argued that its financial position prevented it from depositing the required amount for the plot. The court noted that the earlier resolution had already allotted the plot to Respondent No.3 and that a prior order in Writ Petition No.12286 of 2015 had directed CIDCO to hand over possession to the petitioner, which was apparently complied with. Considering the earlier resolution and the prior court order, the court found no merit in the present petition to set aside the allotment. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. The court did not entertain the request for re‑allotment to the petitioner.

Issues considered

Whether the Board Resolution No.550 dated 26.05.2010 and the allotment letter dated 15.07.2010 can be quashed.
Whether CIDCO should be directed to re‑allot the plot to the petitioner despite the earlier allotment to another trust.
Whether the petitioner’s inability to deposit the required amount affects the validity of the earlier allotment.

Subjects

writ petition
quashing
allotment
CIDCO
board resolution
possession
religious trust
Maharashtra

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:12337-DB

                                                 1


                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

                                    914 WRIT PETITION NO.5529 OF 2019

               Shri Vitthal Rukhmai Bhakt Mandal
               Sevabhavi Vishvastha Sanstha Aurangabad
               Through President                                          ..Petitioner

                     Versus

               The State of Maharashtra                                   ..Respondent
                                                     …..

               Adv. Sharayu Dhanture h/f. Adv. R. V. Gore for the Petitioner
               Shri. P. K. Lakhotiya, AGP for the State.
                                                   …..

                                             CORAM :       N. B. SURYAWANSHI AND
                                                           VAISHALI PATIL – JADHAV, JJ.
                                             Dated     : MARCH 18, 2026

               FINAL ORDER :-

               .     By this Petition, the Petitioner seeks quashing of the Board

               Resolution No.550 dated 26.05.2010 and allotment letter dated

               15.07.2010 issued by Respondent No.2 - CIDCO in respect of Plot No.N-

               2/A/L-4 admeasuring 1038.757 sq. meters situated at N-2 CIDCO, New

               Aurangabad. A further direction is sought to allot the said plot in favour

               of the Petitioner.



               2.    Petitioner was Respondent No.3 in Writ Petition No.12286 of

               2015, filed by Muktai Granthalaya Mandal, Aurangabad, wherein a

               relief was sought to the effect that “Respondent Nos.1 and 2 be directed
                                   2
to handover possession of Plot No. N-2/A/L-4, N-2, CIDCO, New

Aurangabad, pursuant to the allotment letter dated 15.07.2010.”



3.    In the order dated 22.03.2018 passed by this Court in Writ

Petition No.12286 of 2015, following observations are made in

paragraph nos.3 to 6:


          “3.     Mr. Gore, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3
          submits that, initially writ plot was allotted to the respondent
          No.3/ Trust. However, the respondent No.3/Trust could not
          deposit the amount. Thereafter it is allotted to the petitioner.
          Now, the respondent No.3 is ready to deposit the amount. In
          the year 2011, the petitioner trust has also made application
          to allot alternate plot. Same is also not considered. The
          CIDCO could have allotted alternate plot to the petitioner
          trust.

          4.     Once an order of allotment is already issued, the
          possession is required to be handed over. It would not be
          appropriate for the respondent No.3 a religious trust to make
          obstruction on the writ plot. The writ plot is vacant plot. The
          structure is on the adjoining plot, as such it cannot be said
          that the sentiments of the people could be involved.

          5.     There would be no propriety on the part of the
          respondent No.3 or its members to obstruct handing over of
          the writ plot to the petitioner, when the same is allotted to the
          petitioner and the compliances are made.

          6.     Considering the above, the respondent No.2 shall take
          steps to hand over the possession of the writ plot to the
          petitioner, if need be by police help. The steps for handing
          over possession be taken expeditiously. The writ petition is
          accordingly disposed of. No costs.”


4.    Learned Advocate for the Petitioner, on instructions, submits that

financial position of the Petitioners’ Trust is not sound and the Trust is

not in a position to deposit the amount of plot to CIDCO.
                                  3
5.    Since the Resolution was already passed allotting the said plot in

question to Respondent No.3 way back in the year 2010 and thereafter

this Court had passed the order quoted above and accordingly, the

possession appears to have been handed over to Respondent No.3, we

find no merit in the Petition and the Petition is, therefore, dismissed.




(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J.)                  (N. B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)


GGP

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…