Bombay High Court
Shri Sai Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. / Shri Sai ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ... on 13 August, 2025
Author: Anil S. Kilor
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
2025:BHC-NAG:8000-DB
1
wp1693.2018.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1693/2018
(Shri Sai Enterprises Pvt. Ltd./Shri Sai Dham Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Jitendra R. Kidilay, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. J.Y. Ghurde, A.G.P. for respondents/State.
Mr. A.C. Jaltare, Advocate for respondent No.3.
Mr. A.A. Naik, Senior Advocate a/b. Mr. R.S. Kalangiwale, Advocate for respondent No.4.
CORAM: ANIL S. KILOR & MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED: 13.8.2025.
Heard.
2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that it was allotted Plot
No.XI-18 situated in the M.I.D.C., Wardha and arbitrarily the said was
changed and the same was allotted to respondent No.4. The
petitioner, therefore, prays for quashing of such allotment to
respondent No.4 and to allot said plot in favour of the petitioner.
3. The petitioner is mainly harping upon a document at page No.42
of the record book which according to the petitioner is the allotment
by the Land Allotment Committee.
4. The Regulations as regards the allotment of the land says that
the Allotment Committee is the authority to take decision as regards
the allotment of the plots. It further says that in case more than one
applications are received for allotment of the same plot, applicants will
be called personally and they will be asked to quote premium rate and
submit it in the sealed envelope.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that the Allotment Committee
allotted the plot No.XI-18 in favour of it and in pursuance to the same,
the petitioner deposited an earnest amount. However, subsequently,
allegedly said plot came to be allotted to respondent No.4.
wp1693.2018.odt
6. Mr. Kidilay, learned Advocate for the petitioner argued that
procedure as prescribed for allotment by the Committee was not
followed in this case and in an arbitrary manner the plot in question
was allotted to respondent No.4. Mr. Kidilay, learned Advocate for the
petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment in case of Real Team
Systems Private Limited V/s. State of Maharashtra and others reported
in 2014 (5) ALL MR 68 to substantiate the argument.
7. On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the M.I.D.C.
submits that there were two claims i.e. of petitioner and the
respondent No.4 for the said plot and the letter on which the
petitioner is relying upon was the internal communication and it only
says that the said plot was proposed to allot to the petitioner company.
It is argued that unless allotment letter is issued no right creates in
favour of such person. It is, therefore, argued that the petition is
devoid of any merit.
8. Mr. Naik, learned Senior Advocate has reiterated the
submissions of the learned Advocate for the M.I.D.C. and further
drawn attention of this Court to a letter dated 5.5.2015 issued on
behalf of Shri Sai Enterprises Private Limited which states that the
petitioner deposited an earnest amount on 30.4.2015 in the office of
M.I.D.C. The letter further requests that the plot from OS-3 in Wardha
Industrial area be allotted to the petitioner. It is argued that it was the
petitioner's request for some other plot and, therefore, the petitioner
now cannot raise a grievance that plot XI-18 was not allotted to the
petitioner company.
9. In view of rival submissions, we have perused the record and the
impugned order of allotment.
wp1693.2018.odt
10. There is no doubt about the law laid down in case of Real Team
Systems Private Limited (supra) that in case of allotment by M.I.D.C.
there shall be fairness and reasonableness in the process of allotment.
11. In the present matter, there is no document to show that plot XI-
18 was allotted to the petitioner. The document on which the
petitioner is relying upon, only supports the case of the petitioner to
the extent that the Committee had proposed to allot the plot in
question to the petitioner, however, it does not speak about the
allotment of the plot.
12. Furthermore, the said document is an internal communication
and after such decision, if any, there is no letter issued by the
respondent No.3 confirming the allotment of plot in favour of the
petitioner.
13. There is no dispute that the petitioner deposited an earnest
amount, however, it cannot be ignored that on 5.5.2015 the petitioner
itself requested for allotment of some other plot and once such request
is made, it can be said that the petitioner had waived its right over the
plot in question.
14. In the circumstances, we do not find any force in submissions of
the learned Advocate for the petitioner that in an arbitrary manner the
plot of the petitioner came to be allotted in the name of respondent
No.4. In that view of the matter, the petition is dismissed. No costs.
(MRS.VRUSHALI V.JOSHI, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.)
Tambaskar.
Signed by: MR. N.V. TAMBASKAR
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 14/08/2025 17:06:02
