- Case
- M/S. BHOSALE HOMES THRU PARTNER SHRI. BABASAHEB M BHOSALE v. CITY AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF MAHARASHTRA LTD. AND ORS (Bombay High Court, 20-03-2025)
- Law
- Companies Act, Indian Partnership Act, Transfer of Property Act, Constitution of India.
Facts: Bhosale Homes, a partnership firm, sought a writ of mandamus against CIDCO to withdraw a Stop Work Notice issued for their construction activity on a plot in Ulwe, Navi Mumbai. The plot was allotted under the 12.5% Scheme for Project Affected Persons (PAP). CIDCO justified the notice by claiming the land was allotted to Sir Mohammed Yusuf Trust. The petitioners argued they had invested significantly and that a similar Stop Work Notice to Sai Krupa Builders was previously quashed by the court.
Procedural Posture: The case came before the Bombay High Court as a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the validity of the Stop Work Notice issued by CIDCO.
Issue: Can the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226, adjudicate a dispute regarding the title of land when CIDCO has issued a Stop Work Notice based on a claim that the land belongs to a different entity (Sir Mohammed Yusuf Trust) than the petitioner?
Holding: No, the High Court cannot adjudicate the title dispute in its writ jurisdiction. The Writ Petition is dismissed, granting liberty to the Petitioners to avail remedy before the Civil Court.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the case involved a disputed question of title to the land, which required adjudication by a civil court. While the petitioners cited a previous case (Sai Kripa Developers) where a similar Stop Work Notice was quashed, the Court distinguished that case, noting that in the previous case, CIDCO had not disputed that the petitioner's predecessor in title was a tenant. Here, CIDCO disputed the petitioners' title based on a letter from the Collector, making it a matter for civil court determination. The court held that the issuance of the Stop Work Notice and rejection of development permission could not be faulted, given the title dispute.
