PARSHURAM GOVIND PATIL vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH G.P. AND ANR

Judgment text excerpt

906. WP.15831.2022-B.DOC Digitally signed by ANANT ANANT KRISHNA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY KRISHNA NAIK CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION NAIK Date: 2026.02.27 17:29:46 WRIT PETITION NO. 15831 OF 2022 +0530 Parshuram Govind Patil ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents _______ Mr. Sanjeev Gorwadkar, Senior Advocate i/b. Adv. Suresh M. Kamble for the Petitioner. Mr. A. I. Patel, Add. GP a/w. Ms. M. S. Bane, AGP for Respondent No.1- State. Mr. Rohit Sakhadeo for Respondent No.2-CIDCO. Ms. Deepa Punde i/b. Mr. Sachin Punde for Respondent Nos. 3 to 5, 6A to 6D, 9, 10, 11 and 13. Ms Kirthika i/b. Mr. Ajay Joshi for the Respondent Nos. 7A to 7G _______ CORAM: MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ. DATE: 26th FEBRUARY 2026 ORDER (Per MANISH PITALE, J): 1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for the Respondents. 2. By this Petition the Petitioner is seeking quashing of impugned communication dated 11/07/2019 issued by the Respondent No. 2 i.e. Chief Land and Survey Officer of the City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. (CIDCO) whereby the Petitioner has been called upon to submit probate of will executed by the father of the Petitioner, on the basis of which the Petitioner claims right to developed Akn 1 906. WP.15831.2022-B.DOC plots as per the scheme of CIDCO. The said scheme stipulates that developed plots to the extent of 12.5% of the acquired land would be made available to the original landowners, in addition to the compensation amount paid to them. It is the case of the Petitioner that as per the subject will dated 23/06/1997 the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit under the said scheme, which otherwise was a benefit accruing to his deceased father. 3. The Petitioner is also chall