Narayan Gajanan Thakur v. The City Industrial Development Corporation Of Maharashtra Limited And ORS

Digitally signed by ANANT KRISHNA NAIK Date:

2026.02.16 11:14:43 +0530 ANANT KRISHNA NAIK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1149 OF 2026 Narayan Gajanan Thakur ....Petitioner V/S The City Industrial Development Corporation Of Maharashtra Limited And Ors.

...Respondents

_______ Adv. Sanket Thakur for the Petitioner.

Adv. Harshit Taygi (through VC) i/b. DSK Legal for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2-CIDCO Mr. Kedar B. Dighe, Addl. GP a/w. Adv. Pooja Patil, AGP for the Respondent-State _______

CORAM:

MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.

DATE:

13th FEBRUARY 2026 P.C.

1.

The grievance of the Petitioner in the present Writ Petition is that an Application moved on his behalf for benefit of 12.5% scheme has not been decided by the acquiring body i.e. City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (CIDCO). According to the Petitioner, he is eligible for benefit under the said scheme for allotment of developed plots to the extent of 12.5% of the acquired land. 2.

It is brought to our notice that last such Application was moved by the Petitioner on 30th April, 2024 and till date the acquiring body-CIDCO has not responded.

3.

The Respondent No. 1 and 2-CIDCO are represented by Counsel, who has joined through video conferencing. Respondent Nos. 3 to 8 are represented by learned AGP.

4.

The learned Counsel appearing for Respondent-CIDCO submits that recently on 14th January, 2026, the concerned officer of CIDCO has sent a communication to Respondent No. 3-Special Land Acquisition Officer to ascertain whether the Petitioner has filed any reference proceeding in the context of the acquisition award. It is further submitted that a response is awaited. It is further submitted that necessary communications are being addressed to all concerned authorities in the process of considering the Application of the Petitioner on merits.

5.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner makes a statement on instructions that reference was not preferred and that therefore, the Application of the Petitioner can be decided and disposed of at the earliest. 6.

We are of the opinion that the present Petition need not remain pending in this Court, as a limited relief is sought on behalf of the Petitioner. If the Petitioner is found to be eligible for the 12.5% scheme, a consequential relief is bound to follow, but this would be subject to verification of the claim raised by the Petitioner before the RespondentCIDCO 7.

Considering the fact that the Application moved by the Petitioner is

pending since 30th April, 2024, an appropriate direction can be issued for deciding and disposing of the said Application expeditiously. 8.

In that view of the matter, the Petition is disposed of by directing Respondent Nos 1 and 2 i.e. the officers of CIDCO to consider and dispose of the Application dated 30th April, 2024 moved by the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible and in any case on or before 15th May, 2026. It is made clear that no further time shall be granted 9.

Pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)