← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/8668/2025disposed off as withdrawn

Devidas Dhanaji Thali v. Managing Director City Industrial Development Corporation And ANR

2026-06-10Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale , Hon'Ble Shri Justice Shreeram Vinayak Shirsat2 pages

bipin prithiani 2-wp-8668.25.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8668 OF 2025 Devidas Dhanaji Thali ...

Petitioner

Versus

Managing Director, City Industrial Development Corporation & Anr.

...

Respondents ****** Mr. Sachin K. Hande for the Petitioner.

Mr. Soham Bhalerao i/by DSK Legal for Respondent-CIDCO. Mrs. Leena Patil, 'B' Panel Counsel, for Respondent-State. ****** CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND BIPIN DHARMENDER PRITHIANI Date: 2026.06.11 10:18:42 +0530 SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.

BIPIN DHARMENDER PRITHIANI DATE : 10th JUNE 2026 P.C. :

.

On 5th May 2026, this Court had passed the following order :

".

The principal prayer in the present writ petition pertains to a consideration of the claim of the petitioner under the 12.5% Land Allotment Scheme by lottery. 2.

The learned counsel appearing for the City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. (CIDCO) submits that the petition is rendered infructuous, as allotment of a developed plot in the said scheme was already made in favour of the father of the petitioner i.e. Dhanaji Sawlaram Thali on 11th June 2025.

3.

We find that this writ petition was filed in May 2025 and the aforesaid allotment appears to have been made subsequent thereto.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks short

bipin prithiani 2-wp-8668.25.doc adjournment to take instructions in the matter. 5.

List under the category of 'fresh matters' on 10th June 2026."

2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that a developed plot is indeed allotted to the father of the petitioner, as stated by the respondent-City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO).

3.

In view of the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has instructions to withdraw the petition.

4.

Hence, the petition is disposed of as withdrawn. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)