1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. 914 WRIT PETITION NO.5529 OF 2019 Shri Vitthal Rukhmai Bhakt Mandal Sevabhavi Vishvastha Sanstha Aurangabad Through President ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ….. Adv. Sharayu Dhanture h/f. Adv. R. V. Gore for the Petitioner Shri. P. K. Lakhotiya, AGP for the State. ….. CORAM : N. B. SURYAWANSHI AND VAISHALI PATIL – JADHAV, JJ. Dated : MARCH 18, 2026 FINAL ORDER :- . By this Petition, the Petitioner seeks quashing of the Board Resolution No.550 dated 26.05.2010 and allotment letter dated 15.07.2010 issued by Respondent No.2 - CIDCO in respect of Plot No.N- 2/A/L-4 admeasuring 1038.757 sq. meters situated at N-2 CIDCO, New Aurangabad. A further direction is sought to allot the said plot in favour of the Petitioner. 2. Petitioner was Respondent No.3 in Writ Petition No.12286 of 2015, filed by Muktai Granthalaya Mandal, Aurangabad, wherein a relief was sought to the effect that “Respondent Nos.1 and 2 be directed 2026:BHC-AUG:12337-DB 2 to handover possession of Plot No. N-2/A/L-4, N-2, CIDCO, New Aurangabad, pursuant to the allotment letter dated 15.07.2010.” 3. In the order dated 22.03.2018 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.12286 of 2015, following observations are made in paragraph nos.3 to 6: “3. Mr. Gore, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that, initially writ plot was allotted to the respondent No.3/ Trust. However, the respondent No.3/Trust could not deposit the amount. Thereafter it is allotted to the petitioner. Now, the respondent No.3 is ready to deposit the amount. In the year 2011, the petitioner trust has also made application to allot alternate plot. Same is also not considered. The CIDCO could have allotted alternate plot to the petitioner trust. 4. Once an order of allotment is already issued, the possession is required to be handed over. It would not be appropriate for the respondent No.3 a religious trust to make obstruction on the writ plot. The writ plot is vacant plot. The structure is on the adjoining plot, as such it cannot be said that the sentiments of the people could be involved. 5. There would be no propriety on the part of the respondent No.3 or its members to obstruct handing over of the writ plot to the petitioner, when the same is allotted to the petitioner and the compliances are made. 6. Considering the above, the respondent No.2 shall take steps to hand over the possession of the writ plot to the petitioner, if need be by police help. The steps for handing over possession be taken expeditiously. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.” 4. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner, on instructions, submits that financial position of the Petitioners’ Trust is not sound and the Trust is not in a position to deposit the amount of plot to CIDCO. 3 5. Since the Resolution was already passed allotting the said plot in question to Respondent No.3 way back in the year 2010 and thereafter this Court had passed the order quoted above and accordingly, the possession appears to have been handed over to Respondent No.3, we find no merit in the Petition and the Petition is, therefore, dismissed. (VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J.) (N. B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) GGP