IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL WRIT PETITION ___ OF 2024

DISTRICT RAIGAD

Pratap Janardhan Bagde Petitioners

v/s

CIDCO LTD & others Respondents

INDEX

S. No Exhibit Particulars Page

.

1 Synopsis, Points and Authorities

2 Memo of Petition

3 A Award No. 80 being Unit Case No. 122 dated 04/11/84

4 B Compensation Certificate (CC)

5 C Intent letter Dated 18/09/1995 issued by CIDCO LTD

6 D Order dated 22/09/2011 passed in Writ Petition No 7759

of 2011

7 E Letter dated 13/12/2011 wrote by Krishna Goma Bagde

to respondent No. 02

8 F Agreement to Lease dated 27/09/2019 executed by

Respondent No. 02 in favour of Krishna Goma Bagde

9 G Written Complaint dated 01/09/2023

10 Vakalatnama

Last Page

Advocates for the Petitioner

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL WRIT PETITION ___ OF 2024

DISTRICT RAIGAD

Pratap Janardhan Bagde Petitioners

v/s

CIDCO LTD Respondents

SYNOPSIS

Agriculture lands of the predeceased-in-title of the petitioner, were acquired by the

State Government vide Award dated 04th November 1984 for development of Navi
Mumbai, subsequently the predeceased-in-title of the petitioner named as Pandu
Nama Bagde and Sukhir Goma Bagde received the compensation in or around 21 st
October 1985. Subsequently, Late Mr. Pandu Nama Bagde and Sukhir Goma Bagde
were entitled to get the allotment of Plot in equal proportion under the 12.5% Scheme
as per GR date 06th March 1990. That the CIDCO officer irregularly as well as
fraudulently allotted the entire plot to Sukhir Goma Bagade and his legal hires alone
by misconstruing the order of the Honourable High Court.

S. No Date Particulars Page

.

1. 04/11/ 1984 Award No. 80 being Unit Case No. 122 dated 04/11/84,
is been declared in the name of predecessor in title of
the Petitioner and Sukhir Goma Bagde and others

2. 21/10/1985 Compensation Certificate is been issued in the name of

predecessor in title of the Petitioner and Sukhir Goma
Bagde and others.

3. 18/09/1995 Respondent No. 2 issued the intent letter in the name of

the predecessor in title of the Petitioner i.e. Pandu
S. No Date Particulars Page
.

Namaji Bagde and Sukhir Goma Bagde

4. 22/09/2011 Writ Petition No 7759 of 2011filled by the legal heris

of Sukhir Goma Bagde & others against the legal heirs
of the predecessor in title of the Petitioner, is been
withdrawn.

5. 13/12/2011 Krishna Goma Bagde wrote letter to the Respondent

No. 02 and stated that the Honorable High Court in
Writ Petition NO. 7759/11 has deleted the name of
Pandu Nama Bagde from the Mutation Entry No. 2905.

6. 27/09/2019 Therefore the Respondent No. 02, executed the

Agreement to Lease with Krishna Goma Bagde and
others.

7. 01/09/2023 Written Complaint filed by the Petitioner to vigilance

office.

B) POINTS TO BE URGED

The legal heir of predecessor in title of the Petitioners was too entitled for the
allotment of plot under the 12.5% Scheme as per GR date 06th March 1990. Therefore,
the act of CIDCO Officer to allot the entire plot to Sukhir Goma Bagade and his legal
hires (by deliberately misconstruing the Orders of this Hon’ble Court) is irregularly
and bad in law and the Petitioners have illegally been denied the allotment of plot.

That the legal heir of predecessor in title of the Petitioners are entitled for allotment of
a Plot as per the 12.5% PAP Scheme by CIDCO, and the same should be allotted to
them immediately.
C) ACTS TO BE REFERRED

1. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894

2. The Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948

3. The Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.

D) AUTHORITIES TO BE CITED

Authorities as mentioned in the Petition and as may be necessary and allowed by the
Hon’ble Court during hearing

Advocates for the Petitioners

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. ___OF 2021

DISTRICT RAIGAD

In the matter of Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India,

AND

In the matter of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

AND
 In the matter of the Maharashtra Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act, 1948

AND

In the matter of Maharashtra Land Revenue

Code, 1966.

1. Pratap Janardhan Bagde }

Age: ___ years, Occ: Self Employed }
Resident of Papdicha Pada, Taluka Panvel, }
District Raigad – 410 208. }Petitioners

v/s

1 City and Industrial Development Co. Ltd }

through The Managing Director, }
CIDCO Bhavan, CBD Belapur – 400 614.

2 Chief Land Survey Officer (CLSO), }

CIDCO Bhavan, CBD Belapur – 400 614.

3 Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division }

Konkan Bhavan, CBD Belapur – 400 614 }

4 Special Land Acquisition Officer, }

Metro Centre No. 01, Panvel, Raigad – 400 602. }

5 Chief Vigilance officer }

CIDCO Bhavan, CBD Belapur – 400 614. }Respondents

TO,
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND OTHER HON’BLE PUISNE JUDGES OF
THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 HUMBLE PETITION OF THE
PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. That the present Writ Petition is being filed in respect to Lands in Village
Taloja Panchnand, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad, hereinafter for the sake of
brevity to be referred as ‘Said Lands’, which Lands were acquired by the
Government of Maharashtra and are more specifically described in Award No.
80 being Unit Case No. 122 dated 04/11/84, hereinafter for the sake of brevity
referred to as the Said Award, a copy of which is annexed with this Writ
Petition as Exhibit ‘A’.

2. That the predeceased in title of the Petitioners along with Sukhir Goma
Bagdey are farmer whose lands were acquired under the Said Award and had
received the compensation certificate (CC) dated 21/10/85. a copy of which is
annexed with this Writ Petition as Exhibit ‘B’

3. That Respondent No. 1 & 2 is the nodal authority for the development of the
township of Navi Mumbai, for which purpose the Said Lands were acquired
and is also the agency responsible to allot Plots under the 12.5% PAP Scheme
in lieu of the lands acquired from farmers for the township project, as per G.R.
dated 06 Mar 1990.

4. That Respondent No. 3 is the head of the Konkan Revenue Division and the
Appellate Authority in respect of all Revenue matters and disputes in respect
of the Said Lands, which fall within Konkan Division.

5. That Respondent No. 4 is the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the Said
Lands.

6. That Respondent No. 5 is the Chief Vigilance officer of CIDCO Ltd under
whom the corruption, irregularity and fraudulent act of any employee and
officer is been inquired and investigated.
FACTS OF THE MATTER

7. That in or around the late 1970s, the State Government decided to acquire the
Said Lands for the development of the township of Navi Mumbai, and
Notifications u/s 4 and u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued
respectively.

8. That as per Revenue records, predecessor-in-title of the Petitioner Late Mr.

Pandu Namaji Bagde and Sukhir Goma Bagdey & others are entered as the
tenant of the Said..

9. That the predecessor-in-title of the Petitioners and Sukhir Goma Bagdey were
the protected Tenants on Survey Nos.52/6, 64/1/1, 121/1, 49/6+8+9 total
admeasuring around 1-08-8 (H-G-A), out of the Said Lands, and the final
purchase price had been determined u/s 32G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, for their pieces and parcels of tenanted lands. A
copy of extracts from the Revenue records, in respect of the Petitioners’ lands
is annexed as Exhibit ‘C’.

10. That subsequently Award No. 80 (the Said Award) was declared on 04/11/84
by the Respondent No. 4, Subsequently the Late Pandu Namaji Bagdey and
Sukhir Goma Bagdey received the compensation for their acquired lands as
they were eligible.

11. The predecessor-in-title of the Petitioner and Sukhir Goma Bagade received
the intent letter dated 18/09/95 from the Respondent No. 02 for the allotment
of Plot no.:101, Sector 14, situated at Taloja, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad
total admeasuring area 950 Sq. Meters bearing, File No. 231-Taloja (herein
after referred to as the said Plot). A copy of the intent letter is annexed with
this Writ Petition as Exhibit ____.

12. That Mr. Krishna Goma Bagdey and other had filed Writ Petition No. 7759 of
2011 and the same had been withdrawn by them with the Order dated
22/09/2011. That on the perusal of the said order it can be read that “on
request of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner petition allowed to be
 withdrawn. With liberty to adopt appropriate remedy.” The copy of the said
order is herein annexed and marked as Exhibit ____.

13. That Mr. Krishna Goma Bagde with his letter date 13/12/2011 inform the
Respondent No. 02 that “GHejeskeÌle efJe<e³eebme Devegme©ve

ceer Demes keÀUJet Fef®ílees keÀer, G®®e v³ee³eue³e

cegbyeF& ne³ekeÀesì& ³eeb®es DeeosMe kesÀme veb.
[yue³et.Heer. 7759/11 DevJe³es ceeveveer³e v³ee³eue³ee®³ee
cnCeC³eevegmeej HesÀjHeÀej ke´À. 2905 He´ceeCes DeeosMe
nesTve Þeer. Heeb[t veeceepeer yeeie[s ³eeb®es veebJe keÀceer
keÀjC³ee yeeyele DeeosMe efouesuee Deens. lejer
cee.v³ee³eue³ee®³ee DeeosMee®es Heeueve keÀjeJes efn
efJevebleer“ The copy of the said letter is herein annexed and marked as
Annexure ____.

14. That the Respondent No. 2 on the basis of letter dated 13/12/2011 had allotted
the said Plot in the name of Mr. Sukhir Goma Bagdey and other legal heirs
only which is more than their eligibility and had not consider the eligibility of
the predecessor-in-title of the Petitioner.

15. That on or around 27th September 2019 the Respondent No. 02 executed the
Agreement to Lease of the said Plot in the name of Krishna Goma Badge and
others.

16. It is important to note that even after the Petitioner wrote several complaints to
the Respondent they have not took the necessary action against the said
irregular and fraudulent allotment of plot. A copy of complaint dated
01/09/2023 is annexed with the Writ Petition and marked as Exhibit ‘G’.

17. That the Petitioners have been a victim of these shenanigans of Respondent
No. 2 by disentitling the eligibility of the predecessor-in-title of the Petitioner
and have now been forced to approach this Hon’ble Court in desperation to
 seek their legal rights and dues, which they have not managed to obtain
through proper channels.

18. That it is clear from the facts of the case, that the execution of the Agreement
to lease with Krihns Goma Bagdey and others and not considering the
eligibility of the predecessor in title of the Petitioner are also against the law
and that the Petitioners are entitled to the reliefs sought on the following
grounds amongst others, which are submitted jointly and severally, without
prejudice to each other.

GROUNDS

A. That the ______________________________________ prescribes the

procedure and rights in respect of allotment of plot under the 12.5% scheme.

B. That further, it is clear that if the land is acquired in the name of the person
and subsequently the compensation in lieu thereof is paid to the person, are
eligible to get the entitle of the plot in same proportion under 12.5% Scheme.

C. That therefore, the Respondent No. 2 was demonstrably acting outside the
provisions of the Law, when he executed the agreement to lease.

D. That the Respondent No. 2 deliberately acted against the Law by

misconstruing the Order dated 22/09/2011 passed by this Hon’ble Court in
Writ Petition Nos. 7759 of 2011.

E. That no opportunity of hearing was provided by Respondent No. 2 to the legal

heirs of the predecessor in title of the Petitioners herein, either during the
allotment of the said Plot or executing the Agreement to lease, which is
against the principles of natural justice.

F. That the above is a clear abuse of the process of law and in fact a mockery of
the law, wherein order of this Hon’ble Court itself have been distorted.

G. That it is obvious that Respondent No. 2 and Krishna Goma Bagdey are acting
in cahoots to defraud the eligibility of the legal heirs of the predecessor-in-title
 of the Petitioner, while the State officials (Respondent Nos. 1, and 5) have
perplexingly remained silent spectators..

H. That till date Respondent No. 05 had not took the appropriate steps against the
irregular and malicious act of the Respondent No. 02.

I. That therefore, it shall be in the interests of justice to not delay grant of the
entitled benefits to the hapless farmers / Tenants any further, and direct
Respondent No. 2 to allot land under the 12.5% PAP Scheme to the legal heris
of the predecessor in title of the Petitioner.

19. That the subject matter of the Writ Petition is situated wholly within the State
of Maharashtra and within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

20. That the Petitioners have affixed the appropriate Court Fees of Rs.______ on
this Writ Petition and are ready to deposit additional Court Fees, if applicable.

21. That the Petitioners have attached all documents on which they seek to rely
along with this Writ Petition, and seek leave of the Hon’ble Court to produce
additional relevant documents, if and when they come into the possession of
the Petitioners.

22. That the present Writ Petition is being filed in respect of a continuing cause of
action, i.e. in respect of LAR 47 of 2006 pending before the Learned Civil
Court (Civil Division), Panvel and is not barred by latches.

23. That the Petitioners have not received notice of any caveat in respect of the
subject matter of this Writ Petition and are not aware of any other impediment
to the filing of this Writ Petition.

PRAYERS

24. That in view of the above, the Petitioners pray before the Hon’ble Court:

a. That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or
other order, directions or appropriate writ, calling for the records and
 proceedings in respect to the allotment of Plot no.:101, Sector 14, situated at
Taloja, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad total admeasuring area 950 Sq. Meters
bearing, File No. 231-Taloja. and after perusing the legality and correctness of
the same, be pleased to quash and set aside the allotment as deliberately
misconstrued the Order dated 22/09/11 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ
Petition No. 7759 of 2011, when this Hon’ble Court had issued no such
directions;

b. That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus
or other order or directions or appropriate writ, directing Respondent Nos. 5 to
initiate investigation and inquiry in respect to irregularity in the allotment of
Plot no.:101, Sector 14, situated at Taloja, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad total
admeasuring area 950 Sq. Meters bearing, File No. 231-Taloja.

c. That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondents to immediately

withdraw and reverse all proceedings, actions, and benefits that may have
been initiated or provided to the Krishna Goma Bagde or persons acting under
him, on the basis of their ineligibility and irregularity.

d. That the Hon’ble Court pass other Orders that it may deem fit and proper and
in the interests of justice in the facts and circumstances of the matter.

For the above act of the justice, the Petitioners shall ever pray.

Pratap Jannardhan. Bagde Advocates for the Petitioners

VERIFICATION

I, Pratap J Bagde, age___ years, an adult Indian Inhabitant, the Petitioners, resident of
Papdicha Pada, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad – 410 208, do hereby solemnly affirm
and state as under:

1. That I am fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and I
am competent to swear by way of this Affidavit.
2. That I have read the contents of the Petition, and state that the facts contained
therein are true to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that no part of it is
false and nothing material has been concealed therein to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
3. That the Exhibits annexed with the Petition are true copies of the original and
are correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Solemnly declared and affirmed at Mumbai on this ___ day of March 2024

Pratap Jannardhan. Bagde Advocates for the Petitioners

Before Me:
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL WRIT PETITION ___OF 2021

DISTRICT RAIGAD

Pratap Janardhan Bagde Petitioners

v/s

CIDCO LTD and Ors Respondents

WRIT PETITION

Nikunj Raval
Advocates for the Petitioner
Mobile No.: +91 9595952626
Email: vakilraval@gmail.com
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. ___ OF 2021

DISTRICT RAIGAD

In the matter of Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India,

AND

In the matter of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

AND

In the matter of the Maharashtra Tenancy and

Agricultural Lands Act, 1948

AND

In the matter of Maharashtra Land Revenue

Code, 1966

1. Pratap Janardhan Bagde }

Age: ___ years, Occ: Self Employed }
Resident of Papdicha Pada, Taluka Panvel, }
District Raigad – 410 208. }Petitioners
v/s

1) City and Industrial Development Co. Ltd }

through The Managing Director, }
CIDCO Bhavan, CBD Belapur – 400 614.
2) Chief Land Survey Officer (CLSO), }
CIDCO Bhavan, CBD Belapur – 400 614.
 3) Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division}
Konkan Bhavan, CBD Belapur – 400 614 }
4) Special Land Acquisition Officer, }
Metro Centre No. 01, Panvel, Raigad – 400 602.}
5) Chief Vigilance officer }
CIDCO Bhavan, CBD Belapur – 400 614. } Respondents

VAKALATNAMA

To,
Registrar General,
Bombay High Court, Mumbai

Sir,

I, Pratap Janardhan Bagde, age 53 the Petitioners, do hereby appoint and

authorize Vashi Advocates through Advocates Nikunj Raval to appear and act for the
Petitioners, as the Petitioner’s Advocates in the said matter.

Witness my hand this ___ day of March 2024

Yours faithfully

Pratap Janardhan Bagde

(Petitioners)

Accepted and Filed on ___ day of March 2024

Nikunj Raval,
Advocate Code – I-17120, Mobile No.: +91 9595952626,
33, Plot 36, Sector: 11, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL WRIT PETITION ___OF 2021

DISTRICT RAIGAD

Pratap Janardhan Bagde Petitioners

v/s

CIDCO LTD and Ors Respondents

WRIT PETITION

Nikunj Raval
Advocates for the Petitioner
Mobile No.: +91 9595952626
Email: vakilraval@gmail.com