Facts of the Case

Prabhadevi Champalal Desarda challenged a notice dated 6 February 2023 issued by CIDCO (respondent no. 3) concerning land admeasuring 0.84 H.R. in Gut No. 41 and 0.96 H.R. in Gut No. 42, in a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench.

The dispute concerned payment due to CIDCO for a registered lease deed over the land — amounts of Rs. 3,27,97,975 (inclusive of GST) for Gut No. 41 and Rs. 3,82,76,368 (inclusive of GST) for Gut No. 42, aggregating Rs. 7,10,74,343.

After the matter was heard extensively and reserved for judgment, the petitioner sought and was given time to explore raising a bank loan to pay the entire amount to CIDCO so as to facilitate registration of the lease deed.

On 1 August 2023, the petitioner's counsel submitted, on specific instructions, that the petitioner was withdrawing her challenge to the impugned notice and agreeing to pay the full amount, inclusive of GST, within three months from the date of the notice.

Issues Involved

  1. The terms on which the petitioner would pay the amount due to CIDCO (inclusive of GST) to secure execution of the lease deed, and the consequences of default.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner agreed to pay the entire amount due, inclusive of GST, to CIDCO, and requested that the time period for payment be fixed by the Court.

Respondent's Arguments

  • CIDCO, through its counsel, participated in fixing the terms of payment and the consequences of default (deemed surrender of the land and CIDCO's liberty to take possession), and agreed to execute the lease deed on receipt of full payment.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court directed the petitioner to pay the agreed amount (Rs. 7,10,74,343, inclusive of GST) within 30 days, failing which the land would be deemed surrendered to CIDCO, which could then take physical possession.
  • It further directed that if CIDCO succeeded in a pending First Appeal on enhanced compensation and the appellate court reduced that amount, a proportionate refund (net of interest for four months) would be made to the petitioner.
  • The petition was disposed of by consent, with a direction that on payment, CIDCO would execute the lease deed and consider any pending development application within 45 days thereafter.

Important Clarification

This is a land-allotment and lease-execution dispute resolved by consent between the parties — the GST component was simply part of the total price CIDCO was owed for the land, inclusive of applicable taxes, and the Court was not asked to and did not decide any GST-law question.

Sections Involved

  • Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226, under which the writ petition was filed.
  • City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Act, 1970 — governs CIDCO's land allotment and lease functions, the underlying statutory framework.

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of by consent — the petitioner secured a lease deed by agreeing to pay the amount claimed (inclusive of GST) within a fixed timeline; this is a negotiated settlement rather than a decision favouring one side over the other.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad
  • Case No.: Writ Petition No. 8374 of 2023
  • Coram: Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Y.G. Khobragade
  • Date of Order: 1 August 2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.