Prabhadevi Champalal Desarda vs. The State Of Maharashtra Through Collector And Others

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner was withdrawing her challenge to the impugned notice dated 06.02.2023 and agreeing to pay the entire amount of Rs.7,10,74,343/-, inclusive of GST, to CIDCO. The Court directed the Petitioner to pay this amount within thirty (30) days from the date of the order. Failure to do so would result in the lands being deemed surrendered to CIDCO, and CIDCO would be at liberty to take physical possession without resistance from the Petitioner. Regarding the refund, the Court directed that if CIDCO succeeds in its First Appeal against the enhanced compensation and the amount is reduced, CIDCO would refund the reduced portion to the Petitioner. This refund would be after deducting the interest component on Rs.7,10,74,343/- for a period of four months (three months originally granted plus thirty days granted by the Court), with the interest rate being as admissible in law. The Court also directed CIDCO to execute the lease deed after the amount is paid and to consider the Petitioner's development applications within 45 days thereafter, in accordance with applicable policies.

Facts

The Petitioner, Prabhadevi Champalal Desarda, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 06.02.2023 issued by CIDCO. The dispute involved payment for two parcels of land, Gut No.41 (0.84 H.R.) and Gut No.42 (0.96 H.R.). The total amount payable, inclusive of GST, was Rs.7,10,74,343/-. The Petitioner initially sought time to arrange funds to pay CIDCO and facilitate a registered lease deed. Subsequently, the Petitioner informed the Court that she was withdrawing her challenge to the impugned notice and agreed to pay the entire amount within three months from the date of the notice. The Court directed the Petitioner to pay the amount within thirty days from the date of the order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner can withdraw her challenge to the impugned notice dated 06.02.2023 and agree to pay the entire outstanding amount to CIDCO, including GST, to facilitate a registered lease deed. 2. What directions should be issued regarding the payment of the total amount of Rs.7,10,74,343/- by the Petitioner to CIDCO, and the consequences of non-payment. 3. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a refund of any portion of the amount paid if CIDCO's First Appeal against enhanced compensation granted to the original landlord is successful and the enhanced amount is reduced. Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner, through her advocate, submitted on specific instructions that she was withdrawing her challenge to the impugned notice and agreed to pay the entire amount of Rs.7,10,74,343/- to CIDCO. She further stated that the amount would be deposited within a time period directed by the Court. The Petitioner also sought clarity on the refund mechanism if CIDCO's appeal resulted in a reduction of the enhanced compensation. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Respondent State or CIDCO regarding the Petitioner's withdrawal or the payment terms, other than their presence and representation.