Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Anupam Harnath Goyal (aged 80) and his wife Kamal (aged 71), owned two adjacent plots (283 and 284) in Sector N-3, CIDCO, Aurangabad. Plot 283 was originally leased to petitioner no.1's mother in 1981 and later gifted to him. Plot 284 was leased to petitioner no.2 in 1981. The petitioners had earlier amalgamated the plots. They later sought de-amalgamation/sub-division of the plots to facilitate separate enjoyment. The respondent-CIDCO rejected their request by order dated 28.08.2019, citing Note 5 below Table-3 of the General Development Control Regulations, which states that plot categories 1 to 7 will not be permitted to be sub-divided. The petitioners challenged this order by way of a writ petition. The court noted that the petitioners' plots fall under Category 8 of Table-3, and therefore Note 5, which only restricts categories 1 to 7, does not apply. The court held that the rejection was without proper application of mind and quashed the impugned order. The respondent was directed to consider the application afresh and pass a reasoned order within four weeks after hearing the petitioners. The writ petition was allowed in those terms.
Headnote
A) Interpretation of Regulations - De-amalgamation of Plots - Note 5 below Table-3 of the General Development Control Regulations for Notified Areas of 'New Towns' - The court interpreted Note 5, which states that plot categories 1 to 7 will not be permitted to be sub-divided, and held that since the petitioners' plots fall in Category 8, the prohibition does not apply. The rejection order was quashed and the respondent was directed to consider the application afresh on merits. (Paras 3-6) B) Administrative Law - Reasoned Order - Mandamus - The court held that the impugned order dated 28.08.2019 was passed without proper application of mind and without considering the specific category of the plots. The respondent was directed to pass a fresh reasoned order within four weeks after hearing the petitioners. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent-CIDCO was justified in rejecting the petitioners' request for de-amalgamation of their plots 283 and 284 on the ground that Note 5 below Table-3 of the General Development Control Regulations prohibits de-amalgamation of plots in Category 8.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.08.2019 is quashed and set aside. The respondent is directed to consider the petitioners' application for de-amalgamation afresh and pass a reasoned order within four weeks from the date of the judgment, after hearing the petitioners.
Law Points
- Interpretation of development control regulations
- De-amalgamation of plots
- Note 5 below Table-3
- Category 8 plots
- Mandamus
- Reasoned order
