SHIVAJI PANDURANG CHUMBHALE Vs. ADMINISTRATOR, CIDCO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present common judgment disposes of the above three Petitions as the issue raised therein is virtually identical. The issue in the three Petitions broadly pertains to the Petitioners' contention that Respondent No.1, CIDCO (hereinafter "CIDCO") has wrongfully withheld delivery of possession of the subject plots and has deprived the Petitioners of possession of their respective plots for approximately 15 years, eventually purporting to cancel the allotment letters in favour of the Petitioners.

(2.) The Petitioners, in the written submissions furnished by them, have provided a table of the details pertaining to the three Petitions which may usefully be reproduced verbatim hereunder as the same sets out the relevant details pertaining to each of the plots forming the subject matter of the respective Petitions.

(3.) Broadly stated, it is CIDCO's contention, with which the Petitioners are aggrieved, that the Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.9434 of 2016 ("Shivaji") and 9447 of 2016 ("Kalpana") are required to pay Delayed Payment Charges ("DPC") on account of certain alleged delays in making payment of the Lease Premium. CIDCO contends that it was justified in not handing over the subject plots to the Petitioners and in eventually cancelling the allotments on account of the alleged non-payment of the above DPC. Admittedly, there is an interim stay order passed by this Court on the cancellation of the allotments.