Disposed
Rajendra Satyanarayan Gilda v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Bombay HCCAI/150/2010
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CA-150.sxw
ASN
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.150 OF 2010 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.103 OF 2007 WITH PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.155 OF 2006
Mr.Rajendra S. Gilda. Vs.
...Applicant.
State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents.
Mrs. Shakuntala Joshi i/by Anand Poojari, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. Kiran Gandhi, Advocate i/by M/s. Little & Co. for Respondent Nos. 3&4.
Mr.Ravi Kadam, Advocate General along with Mr.N.P.Deshpande, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr.P.D.Dalvi, Advocate for Respondent No.21 in PIL No.155 of 2006. Mr.A.M.Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent No.9 in PIL No.155 of 2006.
Mr. Uday Warunjikar, Advocate for the Petitioner in PIL No.155 of 2006 Mr.T.N.Subramaniam, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 7 and 11. Mr. Vineet Naik, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
Mr. Birendra Saraf, Advocate i/by Negandhi Shah and Himayatullah for Respondent Nos. 6 to 11 in PIL No.103 of 2007.
Mr.S.S.Pakale, Advocate i/by Kirankumr Pakale for Respondent No.11 in PIL No.155 of 2006.
CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 02, 2010.
PC :
The allotment of the land in question in MIDC area, at Latur to respondent Nos. 6 to 11 is under challenge in PIL No.103 of
CA-150.sxw
ASN
2
“The counsel appearing for the petitioner in PIL No.103 of 2007 states that the Court should take up the petition for hearing as the allottees are going ahead with the development of the plots of land allocated by the MIDC which is the subject matter of challenge in these petitions. The Court in these two public interest litigations is only examining the issue of allocation of land by MIDC according to its policy and, therefore, whatever allocations have been made will at the most be scrutinised from the said angle and if the allocations are made in accordance with the rules, regulations and the policy adopted by the State Government which is being implemented through MIDC’s, no fault can be attributed to MIDC. But, if it is otherwise, then definitely the Court will quash such allotment/allocation of the land and in that event the persons/trusts/institutions who have been allocated the land in breach of the rules and regulations which govern such allotment, will be developing the land at his/its own risk.”
2 In view thereof, no orders are required to be passed in the present civil application which is also taken out in PIL No.103 of 2007.
CA-150.sxw
ASN
3
3 Notice to unserved respondent Nos. 18 and 19 as already directed by previous order.
CHIEF JUSTICE
S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.
Mr. Rajendra S. Gilda
State of Maharashtra
Mohit S. Shah
S.J. Kathawalla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court