Prakash Dada Dalvi And Others vs The Maharashtra State Industrial ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1349 Bom

                                1                     wp4640.15

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
            AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD


                WRIT PETITION NO. 4640 OF 2015 

1]     Prakash Dada Dalvi,
       age 48 years, occ. Agril. 
       And business, R/o Hanga, 
       Tq. Parner, Dist. Ahmednagar,

2]     Jalindar Lahu Shinde,
       age Major, occ. Agril., 
       R/o as above,

3]  Sachin Bhaskar Pawar,
    age Major, occ. Agril.,
    R/o as above                       ...Petitioners
                 
         VERSUS

1]     The Maharashtra State
       Industrial Development
       Corporation, through
       its Managing Director,

2]     The Regional Officer,
       The Maharashtra State
       Industrial Development
       Corporation, Nashik Division,
       Office of the Regional Office
       MIDC Audyogik Vikas Mandal,
       Udyog Bhavan, 2nd Floor,
       Satpur, Nashik,

3]     The Area Manager, 
       MIDC, Ahmednagar                ...Respondents

                          .....
Shri N.V.Gaware, advocate for the petitioners
Shri S.S.Dande, Advocate for respondent no.1
Respondent nos. 2 and 3 served 
                          .....




::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2017           ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 01:12:36 :::
                                  2                       wp4640.15

                    CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA 
                                AND
                            K.L.WADANE, JJ.

                DATE OF RESERVING
                THE JUDGMENT          :  2.3.2017

                DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT
                OF THE JUDGMENT       :  31.3.2017


JUDGMENT (Per K.L.Wadane, J.) 

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

With the consent of the learned counsel for the

parties, taken up for final hearing.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that

respondent no.1 has taken decision to set up M.I.D.C.

at villages Hanga and Supa of Parner Taluka in

Ahmednagar District, for which agricultural land of

petitioner no.1 was acquired.

3. On 2.7.2005 the petitioners have registered a

partnership firm named and styled as 'M/s Hangeshwar

Ware House'. Consequently, the petitioners have

submitted an application in the requisite form for

3 wp4640.15

the allotment of the plot in the said industrial area

for setting up a Ware House. The proposal of the

petitioners was scrutinized and same was found to be

fit. The Area Manager, M.I.D.C., Pune had issued

allotment letter in favour of the petitioners thereby

allotting the land admeasuring 5748 square meters

bearing Plot No. X-34 in Supa-Parner Industrial Area

subject to the conditions.

4. On 29.5.2007 the petitioners have paid the

entire premium amount including earnest money and

further the sanction was accorded to the said

allotment by the Area Manager of M.I.D.C.

5. On 23.10.2008 the respondent no.3 Area

Manager issued a communication in favour of the

petitioners in respect of Plot No. X-34/1 thereby

shrinking the size of the said plot to 2998 square

meters and accordingly on 8.4.2008 the possession

receipt was issued in favour of the petitioners. The

petitioners were put to actual possession of the said

plot No. X-34/1.

4 wp4640.15

6. On 23.10.2008 the respondents have called

upon the petitioners to execute the agreement with

respondent no.1 in pursuance to the allotment of

plot. An agreement was executed between the

petitioners and respondent no.1. The petitioners had

paid entire amount of Rs.2,99,800/- before execution

of the lease deed. Thus, the petitioner became

lawful allottee and holder of the said plot.

7. On 23.7.2012 the Deputy Engineer of M.I.D.C.

had accorded fresh approval to the building plan of

proposed industrial building on plot no. X-34/1 of "X

block". The petitioners had carried out the

construction of ware house strictly in accordance

with the approved plan and the drawings submitted by

them for the construction of ware house and they

started the business activities. The Deputy Engineer

of M.I.D.C. issued completion certificate in favour

of the petitioners.

8. On 27.10.2014 the respondent no.2 Regional

5 wp4640.15

Officer has abruptly issued a communication thereby

shrinking/reducing the size of the plot to 2000

square meters in stead of 2998 square meters. The

respondent no.2 has passed the said order in utter

disregard and against the principles of natural

justice without issuing any sort of notice and

without offering the opportunity of being heard. It

is further contended by the petitioners that pursuant

to the agreement between the petitioners and

respondent no.1 certain rights were created in favour

of the petitioners. The impugned communication has

been passed behind the back of the petitioners. The

petitioners have submitted representations on

18.11.2014 and 8.12.2014 against the impugned

communication, however, both the representations were

rejected. Hence, this petition.

9. On behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3

affidavit in reply is filed and it is contended that

at the time of initial allotment of the plot the lay

out plan was not at all sanctioned and despite the

same, the allotment has been made by the then Officer

6 wp4640.15

of the Corporation without verifying the said aspects

and issued the offer letter and accepted the earnest

money. It is further contended that in some cases

the allotment orders were also passed and when the

allottee made representations to the higher

authorities for allotment of the plot, the matter was

noticed and thereafter the competent authority

directed to make the inquiry. In some of the cases

the offers and allotment orders were issued of more

than required area as per the project report. The

competent authority of M.I.D.C. directed to

reconsider the said offers and allotments and

accordingly a Committee was constituted for the same.

The said Committee after calling upon all the

interested persons including the petitioners

submitted its report to the competent authority.

Considering the report of the land allotment

committee and project report, fresh offer and

allotment letters were issued to the proposed

allottees. The Committee found that the petitioners

are eligible for the area of 2000 square meters as

per the project report and as per initial demand of

7 wp4640.15

the petitioner No.1.

10. It is further contended that the petitioners

have suppressed some material facts from this Court

i.e. the petitioners were called for the meeting of

the Land Allotment Committee. The petitioners

attended such meeting and after verifying the aspect

of the project report an area of 2000 square meters

was allotted to the petitioners. The petitioners

have deliberately suppressed this fact. The

petitioners were given information about the same and

the petitioners have also attended the said meeting

and after hearing the petitioners the impugned

communication is issued to them.

11. The respondent/authority has power to

reconsider the allotment as per the suitability based

upon the project report. Accordingly, the

respondents have allotted the plot admeasuring 2000

square meters to the petitioners. With this, the

respondents have prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

8 wp4640.15

12. We have heard Mr. N.V.Gaware, learned counsel

for the petitioners and Mr. S.S.Dande, learned

counsel for respondent no.1.

13. Mr. Gaware, learned counsel for the

petitioners has argued that the respondent no.1 has

executed an agreement in favour of the petitioners

and thereby allotted a plot admeasuring 2998 square

meters. The possession of the said plot was already

handed over to the petitioners. The petitioners have

constructed thereon a ware house as per the approved

plan. Completion certificate was also issued in

favour of the petitioners. Therefore, according to

Mr. Gaware, learned counsel, the right is created in

favour of the petitioners and subsequent alteration

by way of shrinking the plot is an illegal act of the

respondents.

14. As against this, Mr. Dande, learned counsel

for respondent no.1 has argued that earlier allotment

made was without approval of the lay out. Certain

irregularities were committed by the then Officer of

9 wp4640.15

the M.I.D.C. The Officer without verifying these

aspects has offered certain plots to the allottees.

When these irregularities were noticed by the higher

authorities, the Land Allotment Committee was

constituted. The Committee has examined all the

allotments and after considering the project report

of the allottees they have reconsidered and taken

decision to allot plot as per the requirement based

upon the project report and the respondents have

every authority to alter the area of the plot given.

Even the respondents have every authority to cancel

such allotment.

15. We have perused the record. On perusal of the

same, it appears that petitioner No.1, in the year

2003-2004, requested the respondents to allot him

Plot admeasuring 2000 square meters. This was his

initial demand as per requirement of his business.

Subsequently, by filing another application on

25.02.2005, the petitioner No.1 demanded Plot No. X-

34, admeasuring 5478 square meters. However, the

petitioner was unable to deposit the required amount

10 wp4640.15

with the respondents, therefore that offer was

cancelled by the respondent authority. Subsequently,

Plot No.X-34/1, Admeausring 2998 square meters was

allotted to the petitioner. However, such allotment

was without sanction of lay out plan. Such allotment

was made in favour of the petitioner by the then

Officer of the MIDC without verifying the said aspect

and issued offer letter and accepted the earnest

money from the petitioner. In some cases, allotment

orders were also passed and when the allottee made

representation to the higher authority for the

allotment of the plots, the mater was noticed and it

has been further noticed by the competent authority

that there is no lay out plan sanctioned and despite

that the offers and allotments of the plots were

made. In some cases, the offers and allotment

orders were issued more than the required area as per

the project report. Further, it reveals from the

record that after noticing such irregularities,

the Land Allotment Committee was constituted. The

said committee examined near about 18 allotments and

found that such allotments were made without

11 wp4640.15

sanction of the lay out plan and also the plot were

of more area than required.

16. For allotment of plots, the respondents have

considered the establishment of industry in the area,

nature of its activities, its requirement, the

environmental norms and after examination of such

aspects, allotment of the plots were made to the

allottees, including the petitioner. The petitioner

requested for allotment of plots and submitted a

project report for ware house as partnership firm and

considering the project report, the Committee found

the petitioner eligible for the area of 2000 square

meters for setting up the activity. Based upon such

report, Plot X-34/1 admeasuring 2000 square meters is

allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner

acknowledged the same. But this fact has not been

mentioned by the petitioners in the writ petition.

Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have specifically contended

that the petitioner has suppressed the material

facts.

12 wp4640.15

17. Considering the rival contentions of the

parties, it reveals that earlier allotment of the

plots admeasuring 2998 square meter was without

sanction of the lay out plan. Allotment of a

particular area without sanction of the layout plan

is meaningless and without any base. Therefore the

respondents, after scrutiny of the proposals,

reallotted the plots as per eligibility of the

allottees. In fact, the respondents have removed

the irregularities in the allotment. Therefore, it

cannot be said that such act of respondents is

illegal.

18. The petitioners have relied upon the

observations of this Court in PIL No. 68/2013,

wherein, this Court has issued certain directions

about handing over of possession of the plots which

are carved without there being sanctioned lay out

plan and further directed to auction plots on which

the production activity is going on. In fact, the

above observation is in favour of the respondents,

since the earlier allotment of plot in favour of

13 wp4640.15

the petitioner was without sanction of lay out plan.

19. Furthermore, the respondents have relied

upon the provisions of Section 15 (f) (ii) of the

Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961, which

reads as follows:

"15. Subject to the provisions of this Act,

the Corporation shall have power -

(f) (ii) To modify or rescind such allotments,

including the right and powers to evict the

allottees concerned on breach of any of the

terms or conditions, of their allotment;"

As per this provision, the respondents have

power to cancel the allotment, in case of breach of

any of the provisions of the Act. In the present

case, initial allotment of plot was basically

without there being sanctioned lay out plan.

Therefore, it was in contravention of the scheme.

The respondents have rightly cancelled the earlier

allotment and have allotted plot, admeasuring 2000

square meters, considering the entitlement of the

14 wp4640.15

petitioners, based upon the project report.

20. It is thus clear from the above facts and

circumstances and the reasons mentioned that no case

is made out by the petitioners. Writ petition is

accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as

to costs.

21. Status quo granted on 30th November, 2016

to continue till 14.04.2017.

(K. L. WADANE, J.) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. )

JPC