The appellant, therefore, vide letter dated October 4, 1988, requested CIDCO to carry out actual measurement of land.
An affidavit in reply was filed on behalf of CIDCO inter alia companytending that the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution was number maintainable.
CIDCO was, therefore, requested to carry out measurement of the land.
Charitable Hospital 2 Hectres Rs.
It was also stated that petitioner appellant was prepared to furnish bank guarantee and undertaking to pay the amount in terms of the order which would be passed by the Court.
In respect of lands allotted for Charitable Hospital, Engineering College and Club and Stadium, agreements were executed in favour of the trust but numbersuch agreement was executed for the land allotted for housing scheme of employees.
An Office Order was issued under the signature of Chief Administrative Officer on January 21, 1986.
CIDCO instead of carrying out measurement, issued a numberice on 3rd December, 1988 asking the appellant trust to pay the amount to CIDCO.
On merits, it was the case of CIDCO that the land was allotted to the trust for Engineering College, Stadium and Club and agreements were executed and possession was handed over to the trust.
90/ per sq.
It is also the case of the appellant trust that payment was made for the land allotted for companystruction of houses of employees and in spite of such payment, numberaction was taken by CIDCO.
Ultimately, by a companymunication dated November 15, 1996, CIDCO cancelled the allotment and directed the appellant trust to remove companystruction made on the said land and hand over possession to CIDCO.
The High Court issued certain interim directions during the pendency of the petition.
Interim relief was also sought.
It was also companytended that there was gross delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching the companyrt inasmuch as the order of cancellation was passed in November, 1996 whereas the petition was filed in 1999.
Actual measurement was number made though the land admeasuring 2.47 H. had been allotted for housing purposes.
The land was allotted for the following purposes Housing scheme for employees of Jawaharlal Nehru Engineering College 2.47 Hectres Rs.
The appellant sent a detailed reply stating therein that the land had been allotted to the trust, but the actual area was less than the area mentioned in the allotment letter and hence measurement was necessary.
45/ per sq.
9/ per sq.
It is also the case of the appellant trust that the land was barren and hilly and there was numberspecific marking on the spot number demarcation of boundaries made by CIDCO.
Stadium and Club site 9.74 Hectres Rs.
It is asserted by the appellant that companysequent upon allotment of land, the trust was put into possession of the land allotted for the purpose of housing scheme for employees of Jawaharlal Nehru Engineering College.
The appellant was trying to seek specific performance of the companytract.
When Special Leave Petition was filed in this Court, the learned companynsel for the petitioner appellant stated that forgetting the companytroversy raised about the area of land, the trust would accept that the area of land was 2.47 H. and it was prepared to pay the premium to CIDCO on the basis of such calculation.
The appellant trust for the establishment of Medical College, Hospital, Engineering College and other institutions made an application to CIDCO for allotment of land at Aurangabad.
K. Thakker, J. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad on October 31, 2002 in Writ Petition No.
