Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.15332 OF 2023

1.Mandar Shashikant Jadhav,

Aged: 40 years, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.88, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210.

2.Syed Shahzad Hussain (IAS),

Aged: 73, Occ: Service (Retired)

Residing at Plot No.91, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210.

3.Banshnarayan J. Pal,

Aged Major, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.87, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai – 410 210.

4.Sambhaji Patil,

Aged Major, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.98, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210.

5.Nalin Sharma,

Aged Major, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.79, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210

6.Mr. Anubhav Sinhal,

Aged Major, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.85, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210

7.Krishna Narayan Pillai,

Aged Major, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.144, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210

1 2026:BHC-AS:33455-DB

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

8.Kulvinder Singh Bansal,

Aged Major, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.120, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210

9.Venkatachalam Subrahmaniam,

Aged Major, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.95, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210

10.Navin Agarwal,

Aged Major, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.81, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210

11.Trilochan Singh,

Aged Major, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.140, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210

12. Gopal Gupta,

Aged Major, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.119, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210

13.Sachin Dubey,

Aged Major, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.94, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210

14.Sanjay Sinha,

Aged Major, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.116, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210

15.Anita Dongre,

Aged Major, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.86, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210

2

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

16.Meena Sehra

Aged Major, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.86, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210

17.Amardeep Singh,

Aged Major, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.107, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210 … Petitioners

Versus

1.City and Industrial Development

Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd.

Through its Vice President-cum-

Managing Director,

Having office at CIDCO Bhavan,

CBD Belapur,

Navi Mumbai 400 614.

2.The Marketing Manager-II,

3

rd

Floor, Raigad Bhavan,

CBD Belapur,

Navi Mumbai 400 614.

3.The Chief Planner,

CIDCO Ltd.,

Having office, 4

th

Floor,

CIDCO Bhavan, CBD Belapur,

Navi Mumbai 400 614.

4.The State of Maharashtra,

through Principal Secretary

Urban Development Department, (1)

(UDD), Mantralaya,

Mumbai 400 032.

5.Arvind Kumar Tiwari

[Allottee of Plot No. 96]

3

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

Aged 49 years, Occ: Business

Indian inhabitant

R/at B-801, Grow More Tower

Plot No. 5, Sector 2,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210

6.Vidyadhar Hari Patil

[Allottee of Plot No. 97]

Aged 57 years, Occ: Business

Indian inhabitant, r/at 1301, Aster

Regency Garden, Plot No. 10,

Sector 6, Kharghar,

Navi Mumbai 410 210

7.Aparna Vidyadhar Patil

[Allottee of Plot No. 97]

Aged 51 years, Occ: Business

Indian inhabitant,

r/at 1301, Aster Regency Garden,

Plot No. 10, Sector 6, Kharghar

Navi Mumbai 410 210

8.Ajinkya Bhimrao Bhadari

[Allottee of Plot No. 163]

Aged 37 years, Occ: Business,

Indian inhabitant,

r/at Plot No. 34, Gandharva Housing

Society, Sambhapur Toap,

Kolhapur 416 122

9.Minti R. Anand

[Allottee of Plot No. 164 & 165]

Aged 63 years, Occ: Business,

Indian inhabitant

r/at Garden Vide CHS, G/1:1,

Sector 7, Sanpada,

Navi Mumbai 400 705.

4

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

10.Arun Kumar Singh

[Allottee of Plot Nos. 167 168]

Aged 45 years, Occ: Business,

Indian inhabitant

r/at 1101, Niharika Residency

Sector 34B, Plot No. 15+17+18+

18A+19+2, Kharghar,

Navi Mumbai 410 210.

11.Atul Anandrao Kharat

[Allottee of Plot Nos. 170 & 171]

Aged 43 years, Occ. Business,

Indian inhabitant

r/at Flat No.2501, Plot No.12

Sector 12, Ghansoli,

Navi Mumbai 400 701.

12.Sunita Rudraraju

[Allottee of Plot No.172]

Aged 50 years, Occ: Business,

Indian inhabitant

r/at Flat No.A-1301, Giriraj Horizon

CHS, Plot No.43/44, Sector 20

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210

13.Hemant Kumar Vijaykumar Shah

[Allottee of Plot No. 173]

Aged 61 years, Occ: Business,

Indian inhabitant

r/at Viraj Bunglow, 1148/B,

Eward Sykes Extension,

Kolhapur 416 001.

14.Kuldeep Singh Bhalothia

[Allottee of Plot Nos. 174 & 175]

Aged 56 years, Occ: Business

Indian inhabitant, r/at B-501,

Kashidham Building, Jay Hind Park,

5

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

Parsik Nagar, Kharegaon,

Kalwa (West), Thane 400 605.

15.Panvel Municipal Corporation

Through its Commissioner,

having office at Swami Nityanand

Road, Opp. Gokhale Hall,

Old Panvel, Tal. Panvel,

Dist. Raigad - 410 206. .… Respondents

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.11377 OF 2025

IN

WRIT PETITION NO.15332 OF 2023

Kuldeep Singh Bhalothia

[Allottee of Plot Nos. 174 & 175]

Aged: 56 years, Occ: Business

Indian inhabitant, r/at B-501,

Kashidham Building, Jay Hind Park,

Parsik Nagar, Kharegaon, Kalwa (West)

Thane - 400 605

Presently residing at Flat 2101 & 2102,

A Wing, Bhagwati Greens-1, Plot-06,

Sector-23, Kharghar,

Navi Mumbai -410210, Raigad … Applicant

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

1.Mandar Shashikant Jadhav,

Aged: 40 years, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.88, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210.

2.Syed Shahzad Hussain (IAS),

Aged: 73, Occ: Service (Retired)

Residing at Plot No.91, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210.

6

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

3.Banshnarayan J. Pal,

Aged Major, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.87, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai – 410 210.

4.Sambhaji Patil,

Aged Major, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.98, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210.

5.Nalin Sharma,

Aged Major, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.79, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210

6.Mr. Anubhav Sinhal,

Aged Major, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.85, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210

7.Krishna Narayan Pillai,

Aged Major, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.144, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210

8.Kulvinder Singh Bansal,

Aged Major, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.120, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210

9.Venkatachalam Subrahmaniam,

Aged Major, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.95, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210

10.Navin Agarwal,

Aged Major, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.81, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210

7

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

11.Trilochan Singh,

Aged Major, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.140, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210

12. Gopal Gupta,

Aged Major, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.119, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210

13.Sachin Dubey,

Aged Major, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.94, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210

14.Sanjay Sinha,

Aged Major, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.116, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210

15.Anita Dongre,

Aged Major, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.86, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210

16.Meena Sehra

Aged Major, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.86, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210

17.Amardeep Singh,

Aged Major, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.107, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210 … Petitioners

Versus

1.City and Industrial Development

Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd.

8

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

Through its Vice President-cum-

Managing Director,

Having office at CIDCO Bhavan,

CBD Belapur,

Navi Mumbai 400 614.

2.The Marketing Manager-II,

3

rd

Floor, Raigad Bhavan,

CBD Belapur,

Navi Mumbai 400 614.

3.The Chief Planner,

CIDCO Ltd.,

Having office, 4

th

Floor,

CIDCO Bhavan, CBD Belapur,

Navi Mumbai 400 614.

4.The State of Maharashtra,

through Principal Secretary

Urban Development Department, (1)

(UDD), Mantralaya,

Mumbai 400 032.

5.Arvind Kumar Tiwari

[Allottee of Plot No. 96]

Aged 49 years, Occ: Business

Indian inhabitant

R/at B-801, Grow More Tower

Plot No. 5, Sector 2,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210

6.Vidyadhar Hari Patil

[Allottee of Plot No. 97]

Aged 57 years, Occ: Business

Indian inhabitant, r/at 1301, Aster

Regency Garden, Plot No. 10,

Sector 6, Kharghar,

9

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

Navi Mumbai 410 210

7.Aparna Vidyadhar Patil

[Allottee of Plot No. 97]

Aged 51 years, Occ: Business

Indian inhabitant,

r/at 1301, Aster Regency Garden,

Plot No. 10, Sector 6, Kharghar

Navi Mumbai 410 210

8.Ajinkya Bhimrao Bhadari

[Allottee of Plot No. 163]

Aged 37 years, Occ: Business,

Indian inhabitant,

r/at Plot No. 34, Gandharva Housing

Society, Sambhapur Toap,

Kolhapur 416 122

9.Minti R. Anand

[Allottee of Plot No. 164 & 165]

Aged 63 years, Occ: Business,

Indian inhabitant

r/at Garden Vide CHS, G/1:1,

Sector 7, Sanpada, Navi Mumbai 400 705.

10.Arun Kumar Singh

[Allottee of Plot Nos. 167 168]

Aged 45 years, Occ: Business,

Indian inhabitant

r/at 1101, Niharika Residency

Sector 34B, Plot No. 15+17+18+

18A+19+2, Kharghar,

Navi Mumbai 410 210.

11.Atul Anandrao Kharat

[Allottee of Plot Nos. 170 & 171]

Aged 43 years, Occ. Business,

Indian inhabitant

10

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

r/at Flat No.2501, Plot No.12

Sector 12, Ghansoli,

Navi Mumbai 400 701.

12.Sunita Rudraraju

[Allottee of Plot No.172]

Aged 50 years, Occ: Business,

Indian inhabitant

r/at Flat No.A-1301, Giriraj Horizon

CHS, Plot No.43/44, Sector 20

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210

13.Hemant Kumar Vijaykumar Shah

[Allottee of Plot No. 173]

Aged 61 years, Occ: Business,

Indian inhabitant

r/at Viraj Bunglow, 1148/B,

Eward Sykes Extension,

Kolhapur 416 001.

14.Kuldeep Singh Bhalothia

[Allottee of Plot Nos. 174 & 175]

Aged 56 years, Occ: Business

Indian inhabitant, r/at B-501,

Kashidham Building, Jay Hind Park,

Parsik Nagar, Kharegaon,

Kalwa (West), Thane 400 605.

15.Panvel Municipal Corporation

Through its Commissioner,

having office at Swami Nityanand

Road, Opp. Gokhale Hall,

Old Panvel, Tal. Panvel,

Dist. Raigad - 410 206. .… Respondents

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.11376 OF 2025

11

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

IN

WRIT PETITION NO.15332 OF 2023

Minti R. Anand

[Allottee of Plot Nos. 164 & 165]

Aged: 63 years, Occ: Business

Indian inhabitant,

R/at Garden Vide CHS, G/1:1

Sector 7, Sanpada, Navi Mumbai 400 705

& presently residing at NRI Complex,

Flat No.102, Building No.28, Phase 1,

Seawoods, Navi Mumbai 400706 … Applicant

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

1.Mandar Shashikant Jadhav,

Aged: 40 years, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.88, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210.

2.Syed Shahzad Hussain (IAS),

Aged: 73, Occ: Service (Retired)

Residing at Plot No.91, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210.

3.Banshnarayan J. Pal,

Aged Major, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.87, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai – 410 210.

4.Sambhaji Patil,

Aged Major, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.98, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210.

5.Nalin Sharma,

Aged Major, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.79, Sector 21,

12

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210

6.Mr. Anubhav Sinhal,

Aged Major, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.85, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210

7.Krishna Narayan Pillai,

Aged Major, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.144, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210

8.Kulvinder Singh Bansal,

Aged Major, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.120, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210

9.Venkatachalam Subrahmaniam,

Aged Major, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.95, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210

10.Navin Agarwal,

Aged Major, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.81, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210

11.Trilochan Singh,

Aged Major, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.140, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210

12. Gopal Gupta,

Aged Major, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.119, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210

13

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

13.Sachin Dubey,

Aged Major, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.94, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210

14.Sanjay Sinha,

Aged Major, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.116, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210

15.Anita Dongre,

Aged Major, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.86, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210

16.Meena Sehra

Aged Major, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.86, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210

17.Amardeep Singh,

Aged Major, Occ: Business,

Residing at Plot No.107, Sector 21,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210 … Petitioners

Versus

1.City and Industrial Development

Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd.

Through its Vice President-cum-

Managing Director,

Having office at CIDCO Bhavan,

CBD Belapur,

Navi Mumbai 400 614.

2.The Marketing Manager-II,

3

rd

Floor, Raigad Bhavan,

CBD Belapur,

14

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

Navi Mumbai 400 614.

3.The Chief Planner,

CIDCO Ltd.,

Having office, 4

th

Floor,

CIDCO Bhavan, CBD Belapur,

Navi Mumbai 400 614.

4.The State of Maharashtra,

through Principal Secretary

Urban Development Department, (1)

(UDD), Mantralaya,

Mumbai 400 032.

5.Arvind Kumar Tiwari

[Allottee of Plot No. 96]

Aged 49 years, Occ: Business

Indian inhabitant

R/at B-801, Grow More Tower

Plot No. 5, Sector 2,

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210

6.Vidyadhar Hari Patil

[Allottee of Plot No. 97]

Aged 57 years, Occ: Business

Indian inhabitant, r/at 1301, Aster

Regency Garden, Plot No. 10,

Sector 6, Kharghar,

Navi Mumbai 410 210

7.Aparna Vidyadhar Patil

[Allottee of Plot No. 97]

Aged 51 years, Occ: Business

Indian inhabitant,

r/at 1301, Aster Regency Garden,

Plot No. 10, Sector 6, Kharghar

Navi Mumbai 410 210

15

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

8.Ajinkya Bhimrao Bhadari

[Allottee of Plot No. 163]

Aged 37 years, Occ: Business,

Indian inhabitant,

r/at Plot No. 34, Gandharva Housing

Society, Sambhapur Toap,

Kolhapur 416 122

9.Minti R. Anand

[Allottee of Plot No. 164 & 165]

Aged 63 years, Occ: Business,

Indian inhabitant

r/at Garden Vide CHS, G/1:1,

Sector 7, Sanpada, Navi Mumbai 400 705.

10.Arun Kumar Singh

[Allottee of Plot Nos. 167 168]

Aged 45 years, Occ: Business,

Indian inhabitant

r/at 1101, Niharika Residency

Sector 34B, Plot No. 15+17+18+

18A+19+2, Kharghar,

Navi Mumbai 410 210.

11.Atul Anandrao Kharat

[Allottee of Plot Nos. 170 & 171]

Aged 43 years, Occ. Business,

Indian inhabitant

r/at Flat No.2501, Plot No.12

Sector 12, Ghansoli,

Navi Mumbai 400 701.

12.Sunita Rudraraju

[Allottee of Plot No.172]

Aged 50 years, Occ: Business,

Indian inhabitant

r/at Flat No.A-1301, Giriraj Horizon

16

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

CHS, Plot No.43/44, Sector 20

Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210

13.Hemant Kumar Vijaykumar Shah

[Allottee of Plot No. 173]

Aged 61 years, Occ: Business,

Indian inhabitant

r/at Viraj Bunglow, 1148/B,

Eward Sykes Extension,

Kolhapur 416 001.

14.Kuldeep Singh Bhalothia

[Allottee of Plot Nos. 174 & 175]

Aged 56 years, Occ: Business

Indian inhabitant, r/at B-501,

Kashidham Building, Jay Hind Park,

Parsik Nagar, Kharegaon,

Kalwa (West), Thane 400 605.

15.Panvel Municipal Corporation

Through its Commissioner,

having office at Swami Nityanand

Road, Opp. Gokhale Hall,

Old Panvel, Tal. Panvel,

Dist. Raigad - 410 206. .… Respondents

Adv. D. G. Dhanure a/w Adv. Jyoti D. Dhanure, for the petitioners.

Mr. P. P. Kakade, Addl.G.P. a/w Mrs. Savina R. Crasto, AGP for the

State.

Mr. Prasad S. Dani, Senior Advocate i/b. Adv. Sagar Amrut Rane, for

respondent Nos.9 and 14.

Adv. Rohit Sakhadeo, for respondent No.15 in WP/15332/2023.

Adv. Rubin Vakil a/w Adv. Darshit Dave, for respondent Nos.5 and

12.

Mr. Milind Sathe, Advocate General i/b. Adv. Sameer Patil for

respondent Nos.1 to 3.

Mr. Y. S. Jahagirdar, Senior Advocate a/w. Adv. Suresh Sabrad, Adv.

17

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

Jeetendra Sachdev, Adv. Amey Sawant, Adv. Abubakar Patel, Adv.

Eshwaree Kudalkar, Adv. Pratik Sabrad and Adv. Avinash Banga i/b.

J. S. Legal, for respondent No.11.

****

CORAM :M. S. KARNIK &

S. M. MODAK, JJ.

RESERVED ON :6

th

AUGUST 2026

PRONOUNCED ON : 13

th

AUGUST 2026

JUDGMENT (PER M. S. KARNIK, J.) :

1. The challenge by the petitioners in this writ petition filed

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the 2020-2021

scheme announced by respondent Nos.1 and 2 - City and Industrial

Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited ("CIDCO", for

short) for leasing out 106 residential plots across five nodes in Navi

Mumbai viz. New Panvel, Kharghar, Nerul, Airoli and Ghansoli

(“five nodes”, for short).

2. The petitioners claim to be the allottees of various plots

under the 2002-2003 and 2011-2012 scheme. It is their grievance

that the 2020-2021 scheme is contrary to the schemes of 2002-2003

and 2011-2012, which were primarily for allotment of bungalow and

semi-detached residential plots with no rise development. It is the

18

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

case of the petitioners that CIDCO is illegally allowing construction of

multiple dwelling units/buildings on a single plot by way of the

2020-2021 scheme and further that CIDCO is illegally allowing

amalgamation of plots which have been previously demarcated as

detached or semi-detached bungalow plots under the earlier schemes.

As a result of the amalgamation and permission to construct high-rise

buildings, the petitioners’ enjoyment of light and air is affected.

3. Before we proceed to set out the detailed facts, a

comparative chart listing the basic features of the three schemes viz.

2002-2003, 2011-2012 and 2020-2021, its salient features, duration,

location, permissible FSI and the applicable law would help in

appreciating the controversy in its proper perspective. It is as under :-

1. Scheme No.MM-II/

22/2002-2003

(Page No.95)

2. Semi-Detached

Bungalow Plots Scheme

No.MM-II/02/2011-12

(Page No.123)

3. Scheme

No.MM/07/2020-2021

(Page No.163)

1(a) Features:-

Lease of one bungalow

plot. Announced in

November-2002.

2(a) Features:-

Applications are invited

to lease-out the plots for

residential semi-detached

bungalow as described in

Annexure-I (Pg.No.136).

3(a) Features:-

Lease of 106 plots.

1(b) Duration:-

60 Years.

2(b) Duration:-

60 Years.

3(b) Duration:-

60 Years.

1(c) Location :- 2(c) Description :- 3(c) Description :-

19

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

Sector No.20, Kharghar

Node, Plot No.77 to 90,

admeasuring 500 sq.mtrs

each.

The details of plot are

annexed in Annexure–I,

Pg.No. 104–105 from

various sectors and plots

in Sector No.21 are on

Pg.No.105 at Sr.No.52 to

65 and Plot No.77 to 90.

Out of those plots,Plot

No.77A, Plot No.89A,Plot

No.89B & Plot No.91 were

not allotted initially but

subsequently. They are

shown by Blue Colour.

Plan given by AG.

Annexure–I, description

of plot, Sector 21. There

are in all 16 plots and

from Sector 21, Plot

Numbers are at Sr.No.6

to 16. (Page No.152).

Annexure–I.

There are in all 106

plots. Plots in Sector 21

are from Sr.No.29 to

Sr.No.43.

Page No.183-184).

1(d) FSI 1 One:-

Maximum permissible

height G+2 Or 10 Mtrs.

height.

2(d) FSI 1 One:-

However, the height of

the building is restricted

to stilt+3 floor.

Amalgamation of the plot

is not allowed.

(Pg.No.139).

3(d) FSI:-

The FSI permissible as

per Approved Unified

Development Promotion

Regulations for

Maharashtra dated 2

nd

December 2020. (This

was not in existence at

the time of first two

Schemes).

(Page No.174).

1(e) Application of law:-

(1) Lease shall be

governed as per provision

of 118 of the MRTP Act,

1966. It talks about

disposal of the land vested

in Development

Authority:-

(a) to such persons,

(b) in such manner,

(c) subject to terms,

conditions.

(2) Navi Mumbai Disposal

2(e) Application of law:-

(1) Lease shall be

governed as per provision

of 118 of the MRTP Act,

1966. It talks about

disposal of the land

vested in Development

Authority:-

(a) to such persons,

(b) in such manner,

(c) subject to terms,

conditions.

(2) Navi Mumbai

3(e) Application of law:-

(1) Lease shall be

governed as per

provision of 118 of the

MRTP Act, 1966. It talks

about disposal of the

land vested in

Development Authority:-

(a) to such persons,

(b) in such manner,

(c) subject to terms,

conditions.

(2) Navi Mumbai

20

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

of Land Regulations,

1975.

(3) Development of the

land shall be governed by

the provisions of General

Development Control

Regulations for Navi

Mumbai, 1975.

Disposal of Land

(Amendment)

Regulations, 2008.

(3) Development of the

land shall be governed by

the provisions of General

Development Control

Regulations for Navi

Mumbai, 1975.

Disposal of Land

(Amendment)

Regulations, 2008.

(3) Development of the

land shall be governed

by UDCPR.

4. CIDCO in exercise of its powers under Section 118 of the

Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 ("MRTP Act", for

short) read with the Navi Mumbai Disposal of Lands Regulations,

1975 framed the 2002-2003 scheme inviting applications from

intending buyers to acquire 14 bungalow plots of land on 60 years

lease for residential use purpose (one plot for single family)

described as bungalow plots at Sector-21 at Kharghar on “First cum

first served” basis at a fixed rate and also on “As is where is” basis,

upon the terms and conditions set out therein. Each application

invited was for specific plot only. The said 14 plots at Sector 21,

Kharghar are plot Nos.77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88,

89 and 90. The petitioner Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 15 and 16 are

allottees of plot Nos.88, 91, 87, 98, 79, 85, 81 and 86 and

accordingly they have constructed bungalows for their residence.

21

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inviting our attention to

the scheme of 2002-2003, submitted that the scheme contains special

terms and conditions for residential plots. In addition to the general

terms and conditions for disposal of plot land, the offer is subject to

the following development conditions:-

(i) The maximum permissible FSI shall be one.

Maximum permissible height is G+2 or 10 mtr height.

(ii) The building shall be constructed for residential use

only.

(iii) Parking requirements :

a.One car space for every 4 tenements having

built-up area up to 45 sq.mtrs.

b.One car space for every 2 tenements having

built-up area between 45 to 60 sq.mtrs.

c.One car space for every 1 tenement having built-

up area more than 60 sq.mtrs.

6. It is the case of the petitioners that the said scheme of 2002-

2003 also contains general terms and conditions prescribed for

disposal of plots by open offer. The offer provides that the lands shall

be allocated on lease. The lease shall be governed by the provisions

22

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

of Section 118 of the MRTP Act and the Navi Mumbai Disposal of

Lands Regulations, 1975 (“Regulations of 1975”, for short) made

thereunder as amended from time to time. The development of the

land would be governed by the provisions of General Development

Control Regulations for Navi Mumbai, 1975 ("Development Control

Regulations, 1975", for short).

7. CIDCO thereafter, in exercise of its powers under Section

118 of the MRTP Act read with the Navi Mumbai Disposal of Lands

(Amendment) Regulations, 2008 ("Amended Regulations 2008", for

short) framed another scheme viz. 2011-2012, thereby inviting

sealed offers to acquire on lease residential semi-detached bungalows

at Sector 21, Kharghar. Under the said scheme of 2011-2012, the

details of semi-detached bungalow plots have been given as plot

Nos.108 to 125, 127 to 144, 92 to 107 and 163 to 176 totalling 65

single dwelling unit plots for residential construction which were to

be developed as semi-detached bungalow plots as per special terms

and conditions contained under the said scheme of 2011-2012. The

said scheme of 2011-2012 contains the following stipulations which,

according to learned counsel for the petitioners are relevant :-

23

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

“Clause 11 - Special terms and conditions for Semi-detached

residential bungalow plots

In addition to the general terms and conditions for disposal of

plots of land, the offer is subject to the following development

conditions and will form a part of agreement to lease.

i. User of land :- The semi-detached bungalows shall be

constructed for residential use only.

ii.The maximum floor space index permitted to be consumed is

1.00 (ONE). However, the height of the building is restricted to

stilt + 3 floor.

iii.Amalgamation of plots at any point of time is not allowed.

iv. Only one dwelling unit per plot is permitted and no sub

division of the plot is allowed. (However, the condition can be

relaxed if the allottee wishes to sub divide the built premises for

his / her immediate family members, viz. wife, husband, father,

mother, brother, sister, son, daughter. In such case, only one

dwelling unit per floor can be permitted.)”

8. It is the petitioners' case that the said scheme of 2011-2012

also contains general terms and conditions prescribed for disposal of

plots by open offer. The scheme provides that the land shall be

allocated on lease. The lease shall be governed by the provisions of

Section 118 of the MRTP Act and the Regulations of 1975 made

thereunder as amended from time to time. The development of the

land shall be governed by the provisions of the Development Control

Regulations, 1975 and other applicable laws.

9. The said scheme of 2011-2012 prescribes general terms and

24

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

conditions. Condition No.16, which according to the petitioners is

relevant reads thus :-

“Condition No. 16: The land shall be used only for the purpose

specified for the plot as indicated in the invitation of offer and for

no other purpose. The FSI to be consumed by the plot shall be

strictly as has been indicated in the offer document irrespective of

FSI permitted by the General Development Control Regulations

for Navi Mumbai for 1975.

10. The objection of the petitioners is to the scheme framed by

CIDCO in 2020-2021. The petitioners have restricted the writ petition

in respect of lease of 14 plots which are part and parcel of semi-

detached bungalow plots Nos.108 to 125, 127 to 144, 92 to 107 and

163 to 176 all situated at Sector 21, Kharghar, which according to

the petitioners, are now illegally allowed for construction of high-rise

buildings/multi-storied buildings.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to

Annexure-I of the scheme 2020-2021 to submit that Sr. Nos.29 to 43

therein mention these 14 plots at Sector 21, Kharghar which are part

and parcel of the original semi-detached bungalow plots scheme

bearing plot Nos.108 to 125, 127 to 144, 92 to 107, 163 to 176.

Learned counsel for the petitioners categorically submits that they

25

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

have challenged the said scheme of 2020-2021 only to the extent of

lease of the said 14 plots.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners challenged the scheme of

2020-2021 submitting thus :-

(A) The Regulation 2 (xi) of the Amended Regulations 2008

defines 'Plot' as land set apart for any purpose and forming a part of

the sanctioned or draft development plan or a scheme prepared by

the Corporation. Chapter-II of the said Amended Regulations 2008

contains Regulation 3 which provides that the Corporation shall

divide the lands vested in it by the Government into disposable plots

having regard to their size and use and shall demarcate them

accordingly.

(B) Plot Nos.164 and 165; 174 and 175; 170 and 171; which

are part of semi-detached bungalow in scheme 2011-2012, which

were to be developed as semi-detached bungalow plots under scheme

of 2011-2012 have been allowed to be amalgamated by CIDCO in

favour of respondent No.9 contrary to the special term and condition

No.11 contained under scheme of 2011-2012.

26

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

(C) The aforesaid plot Nos.164, 165, 174, 175, 170 and 171

are part and parcel of semi-detached bungalow plot scheme of

2011-2012 and the said plots cannot be allowed to be utilised for

high rise buildings/multi-storied buildings since under the said

scheme of 2011-2012, as per condition No.16, the use and purpose of

the said total 65 plots was already specified as indicated in the

invitation of offer and for no other purpose. Furthermore, the scheme

provides that the FSI to be consumed by the said plot shall be strictly

as has been indicated in the offer document irrespective of FSI

permitted by the Development Control Regulations of 1975.

(D) CIDCO has not taken into consideration the environment

assessment studies before permitting haphazard urban development

at Sector 21, Kharghar and hence the impugned scheme of 2020-

2021 to be quashed and set aside to the extent of these 14 plots.

(E) The plots allotted opposite to the petitioners' bungalow

plots would not be maintained as a semi-detached bungalow layout

being the purpose for which it was earlier allocated but for

construction of buildings, or for high-rise construction.

27

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

(F) The legitimate expectation of the petitioners that the

entire layout would be of bungalow plots is breached, as such

development would adversely affect the petitioners’ right to light and

ventilation. CIDCO by floating a scheme of 2021-2022 has ignored

the larger issues regarding the sustainable, uniform and appropriate

planning which needs to be undertaken as its core function. The

manner in which Navi Mumbai City was earlier planned and sought

to be developed is being completely given a go-bye by such

haphazard commercial schemes, permitting skyscrapers in a

bungalow/plot layout which is not suitable for skyscrapers.

(G) The 2020-21 scheme is violative of the MRTP Act as well

as the Navi Mumbai Disposal of Lands Regulations amended from

time to time. The Unified Development Control and Promotion

Regulations (“UDCPR”, for short) which form the basis of the 2020-

2021 scheme is contrary to the MRTP Act. No study has been

conducted to find out whether there is adequate infrastructure in

existence to cater to the requirements of so many high rise buildings.

The 9 mtr. and 11 mtr. roads are not wide enough to satisfy the

requirements of higher FSI. Allowing such large scale development

28

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

would have an adverse impact on parking areas, sewage lines, water

supply and roads.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following

decisions in support of his submissions :-

(i)Shanti Sports Club and another vs. Union of India and

others

1

[Paragraphs 73 and 75]

(ii)New Delhi Municipal Council and others vs. Tanvi

Trading and Credit Private Limited and others

2

[Paragraphs 36, 44 and 47]

(iii) Bangalore Medical Trust vs. B. S. Muddappa and

others

3

[Paragraph 53]

(iv) Resident’s Welfare Association and another vs. Union

Territory of Chandigarh and others

4

[Paragraph 171 and

172]

(v)Indian Institute of Architects Navi Mumbai Center

Through its Chairman, Shekhar Bagool and Jt. Secretary

Kaushal Jadia vs. The City and Industrial Development

Corporation Ltd. and others

5

14. On the other hand, learned Advocate General for CIDCO

1(2009) 15 SCC 705

2(2008) 8 SCC 765

3(1991) 4 SCC 54

4(2023) 8 SCC 643

5Public Interest Litigation No.28 of 2019 dated 01/07/2024.

29

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

opposed the writ petition. Our attention is invited to the detailed

affidavit-in-reply filed by CIDCO. Learned Advocate General has also

taken us through the relevant provisions of the various schemes.

Mr. Y. S. Jahagirdar, Mr. Prasad S. Dani, learned Senior Advocates as

well as Mr. Rubin Vakil, learned counsel appearing for the developers

and allottees of the 2020-2021 scheme supported the submissions

advanced by learned Advocate General, in addition made

submissions which we have dealt with in the later part of this

judgment.

15. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the

following decisions in support of their submissions :-

(i)Balco Employees’ Union (Regd.) vs. Union of India

and others

6

[Paragraph 46]

(ii)Rajvansh Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors.

vs. The City and Industrial Development Corporation of

Maharashtra Ltd. (The CIDCO Ltd.) and Ors.

7

[Paragraph 3]

(iii) MIG Cricket Club vs. Abhinav Sahakar Education

Society and others

8

[Paragraph 28]

6(2002) 2 SCC 333

7Writ Petition No.2931 of 2010 decided on 14/12/2011.

8(2011) 9 SCC 97

30

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

(iv)Nishant Karsan Bhagat vs. City and Industrial

Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. and others

9

[Paragraphs 56, 59, 72, 73, 80 and 92

(v) Sunil B. Sharma and others vs. South Delhi Municipal

Corporation and others

10

[Paragraphs 35 and 36]

(vi) Clean and Heritage Colaba Residents Association

(CHCRA) vs. State of Maharashtra and others

11

[Paragraph

66]

(vii) Dilip K. Mandal vs. The State of Maharashtra and

others

12

[Paragraphs 1 and 9]

Consideration

16. CIDCO Ltd. is the New Town Development Authority,

constituted under the provisions of the MRTP Act for the purpose of

development of the township of Navi Mumbai and is the Planning

Authority for the planned development of the new township and its

infrastructure. The Government of Maharashtra has acquired all the

lands in the notified areas of Navi Mumbai and has vested the same

in CIDCO for carrying out its planned development in accordance

with the planning proposals sanctioned by the State Government.

92022 SCC OnLine Bom 1758

102023 SCC OnLine Del 7681

112025 SCC OnLine Bom 2648

12PIL No. 39 of 2025 decided on 23-01-2025

31

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

17. The Board of Directors of CIDCO has, with the previous

approval of the State Government under Section 159 of the MRTP

Act, framed the Regulations of 1975 which have since been

superseded by the Amended Regulations of 2008. These regulations

represent the terms and conditions of the lease of the land executed

or to be executed by CIDCO. It is provided in Section 118 of the

MRTP Act that CIDCO may dispose of any land “to such persons and

in such manner and subject to such terms and conditions, as it

considers expedient for securing development of the new town.”

In 1980, the State Government sanctioned the Navi Mumbai

Development Plan under Section 31(1) of the MRTP Act as submitted

by CIDCO. The Development Plan came into force with effect from

01/03/1980, which is in force till date.

18. Learned Advocate General pointed out the procedure

adopted by CIDCO for demarcation of plots. CIDCO prepares nodal

plans and plots are earmarked for various purposes. A broad zoning

is only carried out viz, residential, commercial etc. in the

development plan. We find that these nodal plans are not statutory

plans and CIDCO has the authority to change the nodal plans as per

32

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

requirement and are not bound by the procedures as prescribed

under the provisions of the MRTP Act for effecting changes in the

nodal plans, provided that the same are not contrary to the rules and

regulations.

19. In November 2002, CIDCO announced the 2002-2003

scheme. Under the said scheme, only 14 plots in Sector 21, Kharghar

were offered. The said plots are allotted for the purpose of a

residential bungalow with a maximum permissible height of “G+2 or

stilt+3 or 10 m”. Each plot admeasured approximately 500 sq.mtrs.

The permissible FSI at the time of allotment was 1.0. The said

conditions were in accordance with the then Development Control

Regulations, 1975.

20. On 17/06/2011, CIDCO announced the 2011-2012 scheme.

Under the said scheme, only 11 plots in Sector 21, Kharghar were

offered and the plots admeasured about 200-283.98 sq.mtrs.

The said plots were allotted for residential semi-detached bungalows

with a maximum permissible height of “G+2 or Stilt+2 or 10 m”.

The permissible FSI at the time of allotment was 1.0. The said

33

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

conditions were in accordance with the then Development Control

Regulations, 1975.

21. The State Government sanctioned new Development Control

Regulations called UDCPR 2020 from December 2020, which are

applicable to CIDCO areas. After these Regulations came into force,

all the developments are now governed by UDCPR.

22. On 10/02/2021, CIDCO announced 2020-2021 scheme

through E-Tender-cum-E-Auction for lease of 106 residential plots in

the said nodes out of which 16 plots have been offered in Sector 21,

Kharghar. The said plots are allotted for residential purpose to be

developed as per UDCPR. Each plot admeasures approximately 200

sq. mtrs. The permissible FSI is 1.1 as per UDCPR. Clause 34 (a) of

the scheme of 2020-2021 provides that the maximum permissible FSI

shall be as per the approved UDCPR for Maharashtra State as

approved by the GOM dated 02/12/2020. We find substance in the

submission of learned Advocate General that the schemes of

2002-2003 and 2011-2012 were governed by the erstwhile

Development Control Regulations, 1975. All the subsequent schemes

34

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

would be governed by the UDCPR.

23. Let us deal with the submission of learned counsel for the

petitioners that CIDCO could not have allowed any development on

the plots beyond what was provided by the 2002-2003 and 2011-

2012 schemes. While announcing the 2002-2003 and 2011-2012

schemes, CIDCO did not make any representation or commitment

that the use or development typology of the remaining or unsold

plots would continue to be maintained in the same manner as

indicated in those schemes. The schemes merely governed the terms

of allotment of the plots offered therein and did not restrict CIDCO's

statutory authority to determine the development potential of other

plots in the area. As the planning authority, CIDCO retains the

discretion to modify the development typology of plots in accordance

with changing planning requirements and circumstances.

24. We are not impressed with the submission of learned

counsel for the petitioners that the 2020-2021 scheme has to be

considered as a continuation of the earlier schemes for the same

terms to apply. The 2020-2021 scheme is a separate and independent

35

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

scheme and bears no connection with the earlier schemes of 2002 or

2011. The 2020-2021 scheme is governed by the provisions of the

UDCPR, under which the base FSI is 1.1, as opposed to the base FSI

of 1.0 applicable under the earlier schemes. In any case, the

development of any plot would be primarily subject to the following

conditions/restrictions viz. (a) Development has to be in terms of

Town Planning Regulations in relation to FSI, open spaces, amenities

and height of the buildings; (b) Restrictions contained in the title

document such as Lease Deed. In terms of the applicable regulations,

a maximum FSI of 2.0 can be utilised on the plots, comprising base

FSI of 1.1, premium FSI of 0.5 and TDR of 0.4. In view of the

enhanced development potential and the permission for

amalgamation of plots under the regulations, and having regard to

the growth in population and increased demand for housing in Navi

Mumbai over the past two decades, the scheme permits the

construction of multi-storeyed residential buildings on the said plots.

25. We do not find anything erroneous in the stand of CIDCO

that post December 2020 all factors like amalgamation of plots,

maximum permissible FSI, maximum permissible height depending

36

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

upon the road width to which the plot abuts are now governed by

UDCPR. In fact, all plot holders/allottees who are allotted plots are

entitled to develop/re-develop their plots in terms of applicable

Development Control Regulations as well as covenants in the title

documents.

26. There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioners

possess any vested or enforceable legal right in respect of the 2020-

2021 scheme announced by CIDCO. The petitioners are merely

allottees of certain plots under earlier schemes of CIDCO. The rights

of the petitioners arise purely from the contractual allotment and the

lease agreements executed in their favour and, entitlement to

construct on the plots is in terms of allotment and applicable DC

Regulations. The petitioners do not claim any right in respect of

unsold or subsequently disposed plots belonging to CIDCO. CIDCO

being the New Town Development Authority constituted under the

MRTP Act, is statutorily empowered to dispose of land in such

manner and subject to such conditions as it considers expedient for

the development of the new town.

37

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

27. Section 118 of the MRTP Act specifically confers discretion

upon the authority to dispose of land and to determine the terms and

conditions of such disposal keeping in view the requirements of

planned development. The Petitioners cannot therefore claim that

CIDCO is bound to maintain the same typology, conditions, or

development potential for plots offered in future schemes. We find

substance in the submission of learned Advocate General that

planning decisions evolve with changing social, demographic and

regulatory conditions, and such policy decisions fall squarely within

the domain of the planning authority.

28. The 2020-2021 scheme has been formulated after coming

into force of the UDCPR, which permits higher FSI, amalgamation of

plots and multi-dwelling units. The petitioners cannot assert that

CIDCO is bound to continue the development pattern prevailing

under the earlier schemes governed by the erstwhile Development

Control Regulations, 1975. In the absence of any statutory or

contractual guarantee preserving the earlier development or

prohibiting any development in the vicinity of neighbouring plots, the

Petitioners cannot claim any vested right to challenge the policy

38

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

decision of CIDCO.

29. The record reveals that out of the 15 plots allotted under the

2020-2021 scheme, 6 plots were amalgamated into 3 plots. CIDCO

has permitted construction of G+5 floors on unamalgamated plots

(with one dwelling unit per floor) and up to G+7 floors on

amalgamated plots (with two dwelling units per floor). Under the

2002 scheme, construction of up to G+2 floors was permitted and

under the 2011 scheme, construction of up to G+3 floors was

permitted.

30. Though learned Advocate General and learned Senior

Advocates for the respondents submit that the writ petition suffers

from delay and laches, in the present facts we have proceeded to deal

with the merits of the contentions as in our opinion the writ petition

does not suffer from gross delay and laches.

31. We are of the firm opinion that the petitioners have not

been able to establish that the scheme of 2020-2021 violates any

statutory provisions or that there is any breach of any regulations.

The permissions have been granted for construction in accordance

39

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

with the UDCPR. The allotments made in favour of the respondent

allottees is in consonance with the scheme of 2020-2021.

32. The petitioners are allottees/lessees under earlier and

distinct schemes floated by CIDCO. We agree with the submissions

of learned Senior Advocates for the respondents that the petitioners'

rights are governed by the terms and conditions of their respective

allotments and lease agreements. The petitioners are trying to

equate the schemes floated by CIDCO with that of a Town Planning

scheme under the MRTP Act, thus completely proceeding on an

erroneous premise.  Learned counsel for the respondent allottees 

submitted that the plots which are the subject matter of the three

schemes are different from the plots allotted under the 2020-2021

scheme. These plots of 2020-2021 scheme were never subject matter

of the previous schemes.  Even the learned Advocate General for

CIDCO has taken a stand that the plots are different and though

some maps have been produced by the petitioners, we do not find

the same to be convincing enough to render a definite factual

finding on this aspect in favour of the petitioners, considering the

40

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

CIDCO’s counter.

33. It is the contention of the petitioners that the plots

auctioned in 2020-2021 scheme were also part of 2002-2003, 2011-

2012 schemes and therefore were earmarked as independent

bungalow plots or semi-detached bungalow plots and hence, these

plots could not have been offered in 2020-2021 for construction to

be carried out only in accordance with UDCPR but should have been

offered only for construction of bungalow or semi-detached

bungalows. The petitioners have purchased plots under 2002-2003

(bungalow scheme) and 2011-2012 (semi-detached bungalow

scheme). It is significant to note that the plots in 2002-2003 were

earmarked only for bungalow scheme; whereas the plots in

2011-2012 scheme were for semi-detached bungalow scheme.

This itself is an indicator that each scheme is distinct and different. 

34. The 2020-2021 scheme offered allotment of a total 106

residential plots. The petitioners have placed reliance on the layout

of Sector 21, in which on a portion with Plot Nos.92 to 107,  163-

176 and another portion without plot numbers have been described

41

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

as semi-detached bungalow plots and therefore had urged that this

location therefore always be treated as being reserved for semi-

detached bungalow plots and cannot be sold for anything else. We

do not find any substance in the submission of the petitioners since

out of the plots offered in the 2011-2012 scheme, only 11 plots were

from Sector 21 as the stand of CIDCO on the basis of the maps and

materials on record would indicate. The material on record relied by

the petitioners is not cogent to dislodge the stand of CIDCO. In any

case, to render a finding in favour of the petitioners on this aspect

would require a fact finding exercise on evidence, which may not be

possible for us to render in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

35. Learned counsel for the petitioners made exhaustive

submissions regarding the alleged overlapping of plots

earmarked under earlier allotment schemes. The petitioners have

not been able to demonstrate the alleged overlapping and in fact we

are more than satisfied with the submissions of learned Advocate

General which is made on the basis of the materials on record and

the maps produced that each of the three schemes  announced by

42

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

CIDCO pertains to distinct, non-overlapping plots situated within

Sector 21, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai. Considering the materials on

record and the restraint which we have exercised in rendering a

factual finding in a writ petition when disputed questions are

involved, we have no option but to proceed on the basis that plots

which were not part of 2002-2003 scheme and 2011-2012 schemes

continued to belong to CIDCO and it could dispose them of in

accordance with law for any permissible user in accordance with

UDCPR. 

36. It is by now well settled that the planning and layout of

CIDCO plots is not a development plan and CIDCO has full flexibility

to utilise the plots for all permissible users. Learned Advocate

General relied upon Dilip K. Mondal (supra), Rajvansh Co-operative

Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. (supra), and Nishant Karsan Bhagat

(supra) in support of his submission. We therefore find favour with

the submission of learned Advocate General that the planning and

layout of CIDCO plots is not a development plan and CIDCO has full

flexibility to utilise the plots for all permissible users. 

43

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

37. The plots were auctioned in terms of Section 118 of the

MRTP Act and the then existing Development Control Regulations

1975 under 2002-2003 and 2011-2012 schemes on the specific

terms and conditions set out in auction brochures. The plots offered

in 2020-2021 scheme  were not part of previous schemes and

therefore it was permissible for CIDCO to dispose of the plots in

terms of Section 118 of the MRTP Act and the UDCPR. The

contention of the petitioners that all the plots in Sector 21 ought to

be auctioned on the basis of similar conditions under which the plots

were auctioned in 2002-2003 and 2011-2012 is completely

fallacious and misconceived.

38. Let us deal with the submission of learned counsel for the

petitioners that they have the right to enforce the easementary right

such  as light and air. Also, so far as the doctrine of legitimate

expectation which is sought to be invoked in the present writ

petition is concerned, the materials on record make it amply clear

that the terms and conditions of the 2002-2003 and 2011-2012

schemes were expressly applicable only to the plots which were

44

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

subject matter of the respective schemes. Secondly, as dealt with

earlier, there was no representation or assurance by CIDCO that all

plots in Sector 21 would be developed subject to the conditions set

out in the 2002-2003 and 2011-2012 schemes. CIDCO has acted

within the statutory framework while granting the permissions to

the respondent allottees.

39. In the context of legitimate expectation of a person to be

treated in a certain way, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in paragraphs 8, 13 and 14 in Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. vs.

Commercial Tax Officer and others

13

 are relevant which read thus :-

“8. A person may have a “legitimate expectation” of being

treated in a certain way by an administrative authority even

though he has no legal right in private law to receive such

treatment. The expectation may arise either from a

representation or promise made by the authority, including an

implied representation, or from consistent past practice.

The doctrine of legitimate expectation has an important place in

the developing law of judicial review. It is, however, not

necessary to explore the doctrine in this case, it is enough

merely to note that a legitimate expectation can provide a

sufficient interest to enable one who cannot point to the

existence of a substantive right to obtain the leave of the court

to apply for judicial review. It is generally agreed that

“legitimate expectation” gives the applicant sufficient locus

standi for judicial review and that the doctrine of legitimate

expectation to be confined mostly to right of a fair hearing

before a decision which results in negativing a promise or

withdrawing an undertaking is taken. The doctrine does not

13(2005) 1 SCC 625

45

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

give scope to claim relief straightway from the administrative

authorities as no crystallised right as such is involved.

The protection of such legitimate expectation does not require

the fulfilment of the expectation where an overriding public

interest requires otherwise. In other words, where a person's

legitimate expectation is not fulfilled by taking a particular

decision the decision-maker should justify the denial of such

expectation by showing some overriding public interest. (See

Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corpn.)

13.   In Hindustan Development Corpn. case it was observed

that decision taken by the authority must be found to be

arbitrary, unreasonable and not taken in public interest where

the doctrine of legitimate expectation can be applied. If it is a

question of policy, even by ways of change of old policy, the

courts cannot intervene with the decision. In a given case

whether there are such facts and circumstances giving rise to

legitimate expectation, would primarily be a question of fact.

14.     As was observed in Punjab Communications Ltd. v. Union

of India the change in policy can defeat a substantive legitimate

expectation if it can be justified on “Wednesbury

reasonableness”. The decision-maker has the choice in the

balancing of the pros and cons relevant to the change in policy.

It is, therefore, clear that the choice of policy is for the decision-

maker and not the court. The legitimate substantive expectation

merely permits the court to find out if the change of policy

which is the cause for defeating the legitimate expectation is

irrational or perverse or one which no reasonable person could

have made. A claim based on merely legitimate expectation

without anything more cannot ipso facto give a right.

Its uniqueness lies in the fact that it covers the entire span of

time; present, past and future. How significant is the statement

that today is tomorrow’s yesterday. The present is as we

experience it, the past is a present memory and future is a

present expectation. For legal purposes, expectation is not same

as anticipation. Legitimacy of an expectation can be inferred

only if it is founded on the sanction of law.”

40. It is not possible for us to decide as to what should be the

planning policy of CIDCO or interfere therein unless it is

46

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

demonstrated that the same is patently arbitrary or contrary to

statute. Though learned counsel for the petitioners was at pains to

point out that the development which is now being carried out in

CIDCO is completely unplanned and haphazard, defeating the very

object for which the CIDCO was formed, it is not possible for us to

substitute our opinion for that of CIDCO. Absent violation of the

statutory provisions or a case made out that the scheme of 2020-

2021 is in any way capricious, arbitrary, illegal or uninformed, it is

not possible for us to interfere in the exercise of the extraordinary

writ jurisdiction of this Court with the 2020-2021 scheme impugned

in this writ petition.

41. The decision relied by learned counsel for the petitioners

in Shanti Sports Club and another (supra) does not support the

petitioners in the present facts. The issue before the Hon’ble

Supreme Court was in respect of buildings constructed in violation

of municipal and other laws. Their Lordships emphasised that no

compromise should be made with the town planning scheme and no

relief should be given to the violator of the town planning scheme

47

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

etc. on the ground that he has spent substantial amount on

construction of the buildings. The present is a case where the

scheme of 2020-2021 is floated in consonance with the existing

provisions and in accordance with UDCPR.

42. The decision relied upon by learned counsel for the

petitioners in New Delhi Municipal Council and others (supra) is

again distinguishable on facts. In paragraph 47 Their Lordships held

that in the facts and circumstances of the case that the respondents

would be entitled to construct bungalow on their plot of land, in

terms of guidelines dated 08/02/1988 and they would not be entitled

to construct fifteen dwelling units which is quite contrary to the

guidelines. Thus, it is on the basis of the record that Their Lordships

held that the respondents would be entitled to submit their plans for

development of the plot in accordance with the guidelines dated

08/02/1988 and 09/05/1997. In the present case the plans are

submitted in accordance with the UDCPR which are in force and

there is no contravention of any rules and regulations.

43. In Indian Institute of Architects Navi Mumbai Center

48

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

Through its Chairman, Shekhar Bagool and Jt. Secretary Kaushal

Jadia (supra), this Court was dealing with a case which involved

importance of sports activities and the infrastructure required for the

same. The sports complex was sought to be shifted to another area.

It is in that context with a need to have effective and free sports

facilities that this Court was of the view that the decision to shift the

sports complex to another area was illegal. Thus, the decision in

Indian Institute of Architects Navi Mumbai Center Through its

Chairman, Shekhar Bagool and Jt. Secretary Kaushal Jadia (supra)

turned on its own facts.

44. Bangalore Medical Trust (supra) relied by the petitioners is

an authority for the proposition that what is not permitted by the Act

to be done by the Authority cannot be assumed to be done by State

Government to render it legal. An illegality cannot be cured only

because it was undertaken by the government. The facts involved the

provisions where the section authorises the government to issue

directions to carry out purposes of the Act. Their Lordships therefore

held that the legislative mandate should be carried out and not that

the provision of law can be disregarded and ignored because what

49

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

was done was being done by State Government and not the

Authority. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an illegality or any

action contrary to law does not become in accordance with law

because it is done at the behest of the Chief Executive of the State.

Their Lordships authoritatively observed that no one is above law.

In a democracy what prevails is law and rule and not the height of

the person exercising the power. This is not the issue involved in the

present case. Bangalore Medical Trust (supra) does not support the

petitioners’ cause.

45. Resident’s Welfare Association and another (supra) was a

case where Their Lordships were dealing with the unique status of

Chandigarh and it is from that perspective the matter was

considered. For protecting the heritage status of Corbusian

Chandigarh, Their Lordships exercised powers under Article 142 of

the Constitution of India and issued certain directions so as to

ensure that the issue regarding apartmentalization is first examined

by the Heritage Committee so as to preserve the heritage status of

Corbusian Chandigarh. Taking an overall view of the matter, Their

50

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

Lordships were of the considered view that permitting

redensification in Phase I, which has heritage value, on account of

being “Corbusier’s Chandigarh”, without the same being approved by

the Heritage Committee, is contrary to the CMP-2031 itself. Their

Lordships observed that the High Court itself held that

apartmentalisation is not permissible; it goes on to hold that though

the developers/builders are in effect indulging into construction of

three apartments in a building, the same does not amount to

apartmentalisation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that this would

amount to permitting something indirectly which is not permitted

directly. The authorities of the Chandigarh Administration were

blindly sanctioning building plans, when from the building plans

itself it was apparent that the same are in effect converting one

dwelling unit into three apartments. Though much emphasis is

placed by learned counsel for the petitioners in Resident’s Welfare

Association and another (supra), no doubt the observations made

are extremely significant, in the facts of the present case we are of

the considered view that the decision does not support the

petitioners’ cause.

51

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

46. In Balco Employees' Union (Regd.) (supra) Their Lordships

in paragraph 46 held that it is neither within the domain of the

courts nor the scope of the judicial review to embark upon an

enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or whether

better public policy can be evolved. It is held that “nor are our

courts inclined to strike down a policy at the behest of a petitioner

merely because it has been urged that a different policy would have

been fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical.”

47.      We therefore do not find any merit in the petition.

48. The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

The interim applications are disposed of.

(S. M. MODAK, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)

48. After the judgment was pronounced, a request is made by

the learned counsel for the petitioners for continuing the interim

order which is operating. Learned Senior Advocates for the

respondents opposed the request.However, since the interim order

has been granted as far back as from 11/06/2025, we are inclined to

52

Bhogale 1.wp-15332-2023.doc

continue the interim order by a further period of four weeks from

today.

49. It is open for the respondents to apply for OC.

The application may be processed. However no final decision thereon

be taken for a period of four weeks from today.

(S. M. MODAK, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)

53