Disposed

Somnath Gangadhar Karale and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC14 Jun 2016PIL/68/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Industrial plots carved from reserved open spaces and amenity areas were allotted without prescribed approvals or public auction. The court quashed their regularisation and cancelled the allotments, directing scrutiny of permissible conversions, auction of eligible plots, restoration or resumption of others, and action against unauthorised construction and erring officers.

What did the court decide?

Regularisation order quashed; allotments cancelled; scrutiny, public auction of eligible plots, restoration or resumption, and statutory and departmental action directed.

Somnath Gangadhar Karale and Others Vs the State… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

(1)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶2

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

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.68 OF 2013

¶4

1. Somnath s/o. Gangadhar Karale,
Age : 24 years,
Occupation : Agriculture &
 Social Work,
R/o. Bolhegaon,
Taluka & District : Ahmednagar,
PAN No. : BMXPK8517N,
Mob. No. : 8805640603,
National Unique Id.No. : Nil,
Election Card No. : YKL2349017,
E-mail : [email protected].

¶5

2. Vishnu s/o. Jagannath Dhawale,
Age : 44 years,
Occupation : Private Service,
R/o. Wambhori, Taluka : Rahuri,
District : Ahmednagar,
PAN No. : AOBPD0885R,
Mob. No. : 9822538382,
National Unique Id. No. : Nil,
Election Card No. : CNX2386308,
E-mail : [email protected].

¶6

3. Rupesh s/o. Shivaji Pansambhar,
Age : 32 years,
Occupation : Business,
R/o. Sonai, Taluka : Newasa,
District : Ahmednagar,
PAN No. : AQIPP0123D,
Mob. No. : 9890497054,
National Unique Id. No. : Nil,
Election Card No. : LHQ2857522,
E-mail : harshenterprises2011
 @rediffmail.com... Petitioners.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

(2)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶9

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Industries, Energy & Labour Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 431 032.

¶10

2. The Chairman of Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation & Hon'ble Cabinet Minister For Industries, Maharashtra State, 'Udyogsarthi', Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400 093.

¶11

3. The Managing Director, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, 'Udyogsarthi', Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri(E), Mumbai - 400 093.

¶12

4. The Regional Officer, Regional Office, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, 'Udyogbhavan', Satpur, Nasik - 422 007.

¶13

5. The Area Manager, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Nagapur, Ahmednagar, District : Ahmednagar.

¶14

6. Association of Ahmednagar
manufacturing Industries,
Through its General Secretary,
Shri Milind Eknath Kulkarni,
Age : 49 years,
Occupation : Business,
R/o. Taluka & District : Ahmednagar. .. Respondents.

¶15

(3)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶16

...........

¶17

Mr. N.V. Gaware, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶18

Mr. S.B. Yawalkar, Addl. Government Pleader, for respondent no.1.

¶19

Respondent nos.2 and 3 served (Absent).

¶20

Mr. S.S. Dande, Advocate, for respondent nos.4 and 5.

¶21

Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate, i/b. Mr. V.R. Dhorde, Advocate, for respondent no.6

¶22

...........

¶23

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE &

¶24

 SANGITRAO S.PATIL, JJ.

¶25

Date of reserving
the judgment : 7th April 2016

¶26

Date of pronouncing
the judgment : 14th June, 2016

¶27

JUDGMENT (Per Sangitrao S. Patil, J.) :

¶28

Heard. Rule. The respondents waive notice.

¶29

With consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable
forthwith and the petition is heard finally.

¶30

2.Respondent no.2 passed an order dated
29.05.2013, whereby the irregularities / illegalities

¶31

(4)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶32

committed in allotment of certain plots after the
year 2006 within the territorial limits of
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation
["MIDC", for short], Nagapur, Ahmednagar, have been
sought to be excused and the allotment of the plots
has been ordered to be regularized on the condition
that the allottees should pay 10% of the amount more
than the rates prevailing at the time of allotment of
the plots with interest at the rate of Rs.12/-
percent per annum or at the prime lending interest
rate of the State Bank of India, whichever is higher.
The said order has been impugned by this petition.
The petitioners have further prayed for the following
reliefs :-

¶33

(B ) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the Secretary for the Ministry of Industries, Maharashtra State, to conduct an enquiry regarding illegal conversion of open and amenity spaces into industrial and commercial plots within the limits of Nagapur M.I.D.C., Ahmednagar, by illegally modifying the development plan & further illegal allotment of said plots in favour of certain businessmen and to submit the report to this Hon'ble High Court and for that purpose issue necessary orders.

¶34

(5)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶35

(C)Issue a writ of certiorari or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction
in the nature of writ of certiorari to
quash and set aside the entire process of
illegal conversion of open and amenity
space into the commercial and industrial
plots and further allotments of the said
plots in favour of certain businessmen and
for that purpose issue necessary orders.

¶36

(D)Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction in
the nature of writ of mandamus directing
the Secretary for the Ministry of
Industries, Maharashtra State, to conduct
an enquiry regarding illegal allotment of
plots in single family and also regarding
sub-letting of said plots without prior
permission of respondent Nos.4 and 5 and
to take necessary action of confiscation
of said plots as far as Nagapur M.I.D.C.,
Ahmednagar, is concerned and for that
purpose issue necessary orders.

¶37

(E)Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction in
the nature of writ of mandamus directing
the Secretary for the Ministry of
Industries, Maharashtra State, to conduct
an enquiry against the erring officers,
who are responsible for illegal conversion
of open and amenity spaces into industrial
and commercial plots within the limits of
Nagapur M.I.D.C., Ahmednagar, by illegally
modifying the development plan and further
illegal allotment of said plots in favour
of certain businessmen and to launch
criminal prosecution against the said
erring officers & to submit the report to
this Hon'ble High Court and for that
purpose issue necessary orders.

¶38

(6)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶39

3.Respondent no.1 is the State of Maharashtra
represented through the Secretary, Industries, Energy
and Labour Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. Respondent
no.2 is the Chairman of MIDC and also the Cabinet
Minister for Industries. Respondent no.3 is the
Managing Director of the MIDC. Respondent no.4 is
the Regional Officer, while respondent no.5 is the
Area Manager of the MIDC having their offices at
Andheri (E), Mumbai, Satpur (District : Nashik) and
Nagapur (District : Ahmednagar), respectively.
Respondent no.6 is the Association of Ahmednagar
Manufacturing Industries which is represented through
its General Secretary, namely, Shri Milind Eknath
Kulkarni.

¶40

4.The petitioners claim themselves to be the
persons espousing the public interest. They have no
personal interest in the property subject matter of
the petition. They have raised concern over illegal
allotment of plots for mercantile as well as
industrial purposes to some of the allottees after
the year 2006, which has caused a great loss to the

¶41

(7)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶42

public exchequer and at the same time deprived the
needy persons of the opportunity to have the plots
for industrial or mercantile purposes. The case of
the petitioners, in short, is that the Regional
Officers, namely, S/Shri P.J. Shinde, R.K. Gawade,
Gajanan Patil and Ramdas Khedkar were working for the
MIDC of Nagapur, Ahmednagar, during the periods from
10.09.2002 to 06.05.2006, 31.05.2006 to 02.04.2010,
02.04.2010 to 12.08.2010 and 12.08.2010 onwards,
respectively. During the tenure of the said Regional
Officers, they illegally converted the open and
amenity spaces into plots and allotted them to
various persons illegally. They illegally and
unauthorizedly changed the locations of open spaces
and amenity areas by modifying the sanctioned layout
plan without prior sanction of the Competent
Authority. The said Officers allotted a number of
plots to particular families/industries as mentioned
in the list at pages 19 to 21 of the petition.

¶43

5.According to the petitioners, prior to
allotment of the plots, it was necessary for the said

¶44

(8)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶45

Officers to follow the procedure as prescribed in the
circulars issued by respondent nos.1 and 3 from time

¶46

to time and also as per the provisions of the
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation
Disposal of Land Regulations, 1975 ["Regulations of
1975", for short]. However, they illegally allotted
the plots in total disregard to the said provisions
and circulars. It was necessary for the Officers of
the MIDC to hold auction for allotment of the plots
after giving wide publicity thereof in order to
achieve transparency and rule out the possibility of
favourtism, nepotism and arbitrariness. However, it

¶47

was not at all done. The information collected by the
petitioners from the offices of the MIDC disclosed
that the Officers of the MIDC indulged in corrupt
practices and illegally allotted the plots to the
persons of their choice and thereby deprived the
needy persons of the said plots.

¶48

6.The petitioners made grievance against the
said illegal allotment of plots to respondent no.1
from time to time, but they did not get any positive

¶49

(9)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶50

response. Some of the files regarding allotment of
plots were found to be missing. The; petitioners
alleged that some of the plot holders illegally sold
out or sublet the plots allotted to them.

¶51

7.A Committee headed by Shri Gatne, the then

¶52

Regional Officer of the MIDC was appointed to enquire
into the irregularities / illegalities in allotment
of the plots. The said Committee submitted its
report on 04.12.2010. Thereafter, the Internal
Committee comprising of the Regional Officer, MIDC,
Nashik, and Senior Town Planner of the MIDC, Mumbai,
was directed to conduct enquiry and submit report.
Accordingly, the said Committee submitted report
on 29.08.2011 to the Deputy Chief Executive Officer.

¶53

It was transpired in the enquiries that the open
spaces and amenity areas were converted into plots
without approval of Minor Modification Committee
(MMC). The said plots were directly allotted to some
persons for industrial purpose at the level of
Regional Officer and Area Manager instead of getting
them allotted as per the prescribed procedure through

¶54

(10)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶55

the Plot Allotment Committee constituted at the
Headquarters, headed by Joint Chief Executive
Officer. Though, it was the policy to allot plots of
Ahmednagar Industrial Area by auction, the plots
created from open spaces and amenity areas were
straightway allotted to certain persons. It was
noticed that some of the allottees had not started
their respective industries over the plots allotted

¶56

to them and some third persons were running
industries over those plots. The original allottees
had sublet or sold out the said plots illegally. In
some of the plots, constructions were found to have
been carried out by encroaching upon the marginal
spaces. Some of the plots were divided into two to
four sub-plots and some third parties were found
utilizing them illegally. Some of the plots were
found to have been kept vacant. It was transpired
that some of the plots were allotted without getting
them demarcated. Despite all these illegalities and
irregularities,respondentno.2ordered

¶57

regularization of allotment of the industrial and
mercantile plots to the allottees concerned on

¶58

(11)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶59

additional payment of the amount to the extent of 10%
of the price thereof that was prevailing when they
were allotted, along with 12% interest or interest at
the prime lending interest rate of the State Bank of
India, whichever was higher. Respondent no.2 further
extended time to the allottees to construct buildings
and develop the plots by 31.12.2014. On the basis of
these averments, the petitioners claimed the above
referred reliefs.

¶60

8.Respondents 4 and 5 filed affidavit-in-reply
on 05.10.2013, additional affidavit on 15.10.2013 and

¶61

one more affidavit on 18.11.2013 to challenge the
case of the petitioners. According to them, no
illegalities / irregularities have been committed by
the Regional Officers of the MIDC in allotment of
industrial and mercantile plots to the allottees. It
is stated that plots can be allotted by entertaining
individual applications as per Regulation 4(ii) of
the Regulations of 1975. According to them, the
prescribed procedure was followed for allotment of
the plots. As per the Development Control Regulations

¶62

(12)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶63

for M.I.D.C., 10% of the total area of the land of

¶64

MIDC is required to be kept as open space and 5% of

¶65

the area is required to be kept for amenities, such
as, post office, telephone exchange, schools,
colleges, educational institutions, training centres,
etc. It is stated that there is no bar to convert

¶66

open spaces and amenity areas into industrial or
mercantile plots provided the area to the extent of
10% and 5% is left out as open space and amenity area

¶67

respectively. Accordingly, after allotment of the
plots to the allottees who had filed applications,
more than 10% of the land has been reserved as open

¶68

space and more than 5% of the land has been left for
amenities. It is stated that the Regional Officers
followed the circulars issued by the MIDC as well as

¶69

the provisions of the Regulations of 1975 in
allotment of the plots. It is stated that there is

¶70

no bar for allotment of more than one plot to the

¶71

members of a single family if they fulfill all the
requirements for allotment of plots. It is denied

¶72

that the allotment of the plots was not transparent

¶73

or was tainted with corrupt practices, nepotism,

¶74

(13)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶75

favouritism and arbitrariness. It is stated that the
allotment of the plots during the year 2006 to 2010
has not been challenged by any aggrieved person.

¶76

9.Respondents 4 and 5 have further stated
that on enquiry, it was found that certain

¶77

irregularities were committed by the Officers of the
MIDC, namely, Shri Patwa and Shri Mandape who have
been suspended on 16.06.2010 and the departmental
enquiry is going on against them. A Committee headed

¶78

by Shri Gatne, the then Regional Officer was
appointed on 12.11.2010 to examine the irregularities

¶79

in allotment of the plots. The said Committee
submitted its report on 04.12.2010. Thereafter,
Internal Committee was constituted by the MIDC,
comprising of the Regional Officer, Nashik, Senior
Town Planner, Nashik and Senior Town Planner, Head

¶80

Office of the MIDC, to enquire into the matter. The

¶81

said Internal Committee submitted its report on
29.08.2011 pointing out certain irregularities and
recommended penal action as per the MIDC Development
Control Regulations ["D.C. Regulations, for short].

¶82

(14)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶83

Respondent no.6 - Association vide letter dated
20.02.2013 put forth various hardships faced by its
members and adverse effect on the industrial growth
because of certain administrative deficiencies.
Respondent no.2, in good faith, considered the
relevant factors as well as the object of MIDC to
promote and assist the rapid establishment, growth,
the development of industries and employment.
Respondent no.2 passed the order on 29.05.2013 to
regularize the allotment of plots on the above
mentioned conditions. Respondents 4 and 5 strongly
resisted the PIL on the ground that it is not at all
maintainable.

¶84

10.Respondent no.6 filed affidavit-in-reply on
23.09.2013 and additional affidavit on 02.09.2015

¶85

through its General Secretary, namely, Milind s/o.
Eknath Kulkarni. Shri Kulkarni stated that the

¶86

present petition has been filed with dishonest and
mala fide intention to threaten the Officers of the

¶87

MIDC as well as the allottees of the plots with a
view to harass them and grab money. It is stated

¶88

(15)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶89

that petitioner no.1 is claiming himself to be a
member of an organization, namely, 'Sambhaji Brigade'
and misusing the name of the said organization with
an ulterior motive. He contacts different Officers
with a view to make gains. He is a jobless person.
The information given by him in the petition is
totally incorrect.

¶90

11.It is further stated by respondent no.6 in

¶91

his affidavit-in-reply, that so far as petitioner
no.2 is concerned, he is working in a Company
situated in MIDC, Nagapur. He is interested in
favour of some industrial units who are in need of
plots. He is working in connivance with petitioner
no.1 with a mala fide motive. It is stated that
petitioner no.3 is a shopkeeper running his shop in
the MIDC area. He is indulged in money lending
business and other illegal acts of harassing people.
According to respondent no.6, the petitioners are not

¶92

the persons interested in the public interest. They

¶93

are misusing the process of law for their personal
gains. It is further stated that petitioner no.1

¶94

(16)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶95

called one Shri Waghmode, the Director of M/s. Siddhi
Forging Pvt. Ltd., on phone, on 07.08.2013, illegally
demanded money and threatened that in case if his
demand was not complied with, he would file
proceedings before this Court or before some other
forum. The conversation between petitioner no.1 and

¶96

Shri Waghmode has been recorded. On these grounds,
it is prayed that the petition may be dismissed with
heavy costs and stern action may be taken against the
petitioners.

¶97

12.About merits of allotment of plots, it is

¶98

stated by Shri Milind Kulkarni that the allottees of
the plots of MIDC have already constructed the
buildings after taking necessary permission from the

¶99

MIDC. They have started manufacturing their
products. They have paid the fine amount of about
Rs.7,00,00,000/- for getting necessary permission and
114 allottees have obtained building completion
certificates. The applications of 23 allottees are

¶100

in process and are being considered by the MIDC,
according to law. It is stated that the allotment of

¶101

(17)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶102

the plots to these persons has been made completely
as per the provisions of law. The said persons have
borrowed a huge amount of loan for running their
industries. About 4500 workers have got jobs in the
said industries. It is stated that in the year 2006-
07, there was no demand from the public for allotment
of plots in the MIDC area, Nagapur. Therefore, the
plots were allotted on receiving the applications
from the persons interested in view of the circular
dated 14.05.2007. It is denied that the allotment of
the plots was illegal, arbitrary and tainted with
favouritism.Itisstatedthatwhatever

¶103

irregularities were there in allotment of the plots,
have been regularized by respondent no.2 vide order
dated 29.05.2013. The allottees have fulfilled the
conditions laid down by respondent no.2 in the said
order. In the circumstances, respondents prayed for
dismissal of the petition.

¶104

13.Respondent no.1 filed affidavit-in-reply
through one Pratap P. Jadhav, Additional Collector &
Deputy Chief Executive Officer of MIDC, Andheri (E),

¶105

(18)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶106

Mumbai, on 23.10.2013. He produced the first layout
plan of MIDC, Nagapur, that was prepared in the year

¶107

1995 as well as the layout plan prepared in the year
2004-05 and 2010-11. He further produced the copies
of the D.C. Regulations of 1999 and 2009, besides the
copy of Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961

¶108

["MID Act" for short]. He states that as per the
circular dated 11.05.2007, Minor Modification
Committee comprising of Senior Officers of the MIDC

¶109

has the power to approve minor changes in the
Development Plan / Layout. The said Committee is
empowered to change and modify the approved plan
considering the exigencies. He further states that
the circular dated 21.06.2011 provides for the
residential or other usage (mercantile, education,
institutional, etc.) on the plotable area of the
MIDC. He referred to the circular dated 05.09.2013

¶110

which authorizes change of industrial plot to
mercantile plot. He states that layout of the
industrial area of Ahmednagar MIDC has been changed
from time to time, considering the development
requirements and needs of the industry. According to

¶111

(19)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶112

him, the layout of the year 1995 depicts that there
is ample space for plotable area which is other than
available open spaces and amenity areas. He supports
the action of the MIDC, Nagapur, to change the
locations of open spaces and amenity areas and
further convert them into industrial or mercantile
plots in accordance with the Development Control
Regulations maintaining the stipulated percentage of
open spaces and / or amenities areas.

¶113

14.With the above referred summary of the pleadings
of the parties, we propose to consider the
submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties
with reference to the controversial points raised
therein.

¶114

TENABILITY OF THE P.I.L.

¶115

15.The learned Counsel for respondent no.6

¶116

challenged the authority of the petitioners to
institute this PIL on the ground that they are not
independent persons espousing the cause of public

¶117

(20)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶118

interest. According to him, they filed this petition
with an ulterior motive to threaten the Officers of

¶119

the MIDC and the allottees of the plots and grab
money from them. The learned Counsel pointed out to
a script of the conversation alleged to have taken
place between petitioner no.1 and one Shri Waghmode,

¶120

the Director of M/s. Siddhi Forging Pvt. Ltd.
(Allottee of 9 plots), to show as to how petitioner
no.1 was trying to grab money from Shri Waghmode. We

¶121

are not inclined to consider this conversation as
authentic in the absence of the original recording
thereof. Even Shri Waghmode has not filed any
affidavittoattachauthenticitytothis

¶122

conversation. Consequently, on the basis of the said
conversation, the authority of petitioner no.1 to
file this petition cannot be challenged. However, we

¶123

are of the view that there should be thorough
investigation into the alleged conversation between
petitioner no.1 and Shri Waghmode, through the Police

¶124

and necessary direction would be required to be given

¶125

to that effect in the operative part of the order of

¶126

this petition so that the truth would surface and

¶127

(21)PIL No. 68 of 2013
necessary action could be taken against the

¶128

wrongdoer.

¶129

16.There is nothing on record worth believing
to show that the petitioners have filed this petition
with a view to grab money and harass various Officers
or other connected persons. Nothing is produced on
record to show that these petitioners have filed any
other petitions of the like nature wherein they were
exposed. Even if it is accepted that petitioner no.2
is serving in some unit in MIDC and petitioner no.3
is running any shop in MIDC area, they cannot be said
to be the persons having personal interest in this
petition. The petition has been filed on the basis
of the alleged irregularities and illegalities
transpired in the inquiries conducted by the
Committees comprising of the Officers of respondent
nos.1 and 2. No wild and reckless allegations have

¶130

been made against anybody in the petition. In the
circumstances, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of P. Seshadri Vs. S. Mangati Gopal Reddy

¶131

and others, AIR 2011 SC 1883, cited by the learned

¶132

(22)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶133

Counsel for respondent no.6, wherein it has been held
that a petition filed for achieving oblique motives
on the basis of wild and reckless allegations made by
busybodies should not be entertained, is of no help
to respondent no.6.

¶134

17.It is well settled that even if a person
files a petition for vindication of his private
interest, but raises a question of public importance,
it is the duty of the Court to enquire into the
matter. In the present case, the petitioners are not
the persons vindicating their private interest. In
the circumstances, we hold that the present petition
is quite maintainable.

¶135

ENQUIRY REPORTS IN RESPECT OF ILLEGALITIES/ IRREGULARITIES IN ALLOTMENT OF PLOTS

¶136

18.Undisputedly, a Committee headed by Shri

¶137

Gatne, the then Regional Officer of the MIDC, Pune,
was constituted to enquire into the illegalities/
irregularities in allotment of plots of MIDC,
Nagapur. After conducting necessary enquiry, the

¶138

(23)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶139

said Committee submitted report dated 04.12.2010
which has been produced on record. The said Committee

¶140

examined the process of allotment of plots of
M.I.D.C., Ahmednagar during the period from January-
2006 to October-2010 and collected detail information

¶141

as mentioned in the tabular forms annexed to the

¶142

report. The said Committee noticed that open spaces
and amenity areas were converted into plots by the
Regional Officer and Area Manager of M.I.D.C. at
their own level without obtaining approval from the
Headquarters and were allotted by entertaining
individual applications. The said Committee noted
that an amount of Rs.41,72,425/- was received less on
account of land price. The said Committee mentioned
illegalities/irregularities in allotment of plots
concerned in the tabular formats annexed to the
report.

¶143

19.After considering this report and holding

¶144

further enquiry, Internal Committee comprising of the
Regional Officer, M.I.D.C., Nashik and the Senior Town
Planner, M.I.D.C., Mumbai submitted report dated

¶145

(24)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶146

29.08.2011. The said Committee noticed deficiencies,
irregularities and illegalities in allotment of plots

¶147

and submitted detailed information in respect of the
plots concerned in tabular form annexed to the report.
ThesaidCommitteefurtherclassifiedthe

¶148

deficiencies, irregularities and illegalities in

¶149

respect of allotment of plots concerned and submitted
Proformas 1 to 6 thereto. Now we propose to consider

¶150

these reports pointpwise with reference to the
submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the
parties and the learned AGP.

¶151

METHOD OF ALLOTMENT OF PLOTS OF THE MIDC

¶152

20.The Internal Committee and Gatne Committee

¶153

noted that the then Regional Officer and the Area
Manager, at their own level, directly allotted the
plots by entertaining individual applications.

¶154

21.The Internal Committee annexed additional

¶155

chart in respect of the plots which were allotted for
industrial development after January, 2006 by direct
method (i.e. by entertaining individual applications)

¶156

(25)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶157

without following due procedure.

¶158

22.The learned Counsel appearing for respondents

¶159

4, 5 and 6 pointed out to Regulation 4 of the

¶160

Regulations of 1975, wherein the manner of disposal of
land / open lands of the MIDC has been enumerated. As
per the said provision, out of the land covered by the
layout so prepared, the MIDC may dispose of plots of
land either by public auction or by entertaining
individual applications. The learned Counsel for
respondents 4 and 5 cited an unreported judgment in
the case of Parshwanath Infra Tech Pvt. Ltd., Dhule

¶161

Vs.TheMaharashtraIndustrialDevelopment

¶162

Corporation, Mumbai and others (Writ Petition Nos.1489 & 1500 of 2015, decided by the Bombay High Court,

¶163

Bench at Aurangabad, on 21.04.2016) , wherein it is observed that in exceptional circumstances, individual applications are required to be entertained for

¶164

allotment of plots. On the basis of Regulation 4 and
the judgment in the above cited case, the learned
Counsel for respondents 4, 5 and 6 submit that
allotment of the plots subject matter of this

¶165

(26)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶166

petition, by entertaining individual applications,
cannot be said to be illegal.

¶167

23.As against this, the learned Counsel for the
petitioners submits that the Officers of the M.I.D.C.
unlawfully created plots from open spaces and amenity
areas and allotted them to the industrialists without
obtaining prior permission from the M.M.C. or
Headquarters of the M.I.D.C. He states that the
general rule for allotment of plots of the M.I.D.C. is

¶168

by public auction and allotment of plots by
entertaining individual applications is an exception.
However, the plots have been illegally allotted to the
persons of the choice of the Officers of the M.I.D.C.
directly by entertaining individual applications on

¶169

mass basis without calling for tenders or holding
auction. He further submits that a number of plots

¶170

have been allotted to certain families or industries,

¶171

which shows corruption, favortism, nepotism and
arbitrariness. The names of the allottees and

¶172

description of the plots allotted to them given at

¶173

pages 19, 20 and 21 of the petition, are as under :-

¶174

(27)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶175

`Sr.` `No.`	`Name of the family`	`Plot No.`	`Area` `(Sq. Mtr.)`
`01.`	`Rupali J. Munot`	`A2/4`	`2396`
	`J.J. Munot`	`C20/3/6`	`647`
	`Rupali J. Munot`	`D42`	`1000`
	`J.J. Munot`	`G112`	`5430`
	`J.J. Munot`	`L135/5`	`2566`
	`D.J. Munot`	`L176`	`872`
	`J.J. Munot`	`L192`	`1801`
	`J.J. Munot`	`F-78`	`7000`
`2.`	`M/s Ideal Steel`	`G-14/8`	`800`
		`G10`	`940`
		`G36`	`1000`
		`G111`	`6705`
		`L312`	`18000`
		`F91`	`17700`
`3`	`M/s Siddi Forging`	`L-3/1`	`10702`
	`Pvt.Ltd`	`L-3/2`	`4220`
		`E-2`	`24800`
		`(E2/1`	`12800`
		`E2/2`	`5464.33`
		`E2/3`	`4885.14`
		`L3/1`	`24000`
		`F92`	`23290`
		`F77`	`10000`
`4`	`M/s Sai` `Distributors`	`X-19/2`	`1000`

¶176

(28)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶177

	`Shamsundar Naik`	`L135/2`
	`Ms.Bharti`	`G41/2/A`	`810`
	`Shamsundar Naik`	`G41/2/B`	`800`
`5`	`Gore`	`G-41`	`1000`
		`G-42`	`1000`
		`G-20/3`	`2550`
		`G-102`	`1650`
		`G-41/1`	`1000`
`6`	`P.R. Agarwal`	`A11/1/8`	`1000`
	`S.R. Agarwal`	`A11/1/7`	`1000`
	`R.R. Agarwal`	`L198`	`1000`
	`R.D.Agarwal`	`A11/1/5`	`1000`
`7`	`S.A. Dhuppad`	`A11/1/16`	`23758`
	`S.A. Dhuppad`	`A11/1/1`	`2445`
	`P.S. Dhuppad`	`A11/1/9`	`1737`
`8`	`Chhaya A. Gandhi`	`M98`	`600`
	`Chhaya A. Gandhi`	`M99`	`600`
	`R.Ashok Gandhi`	`L812/A`	`675`
	`Ashok R. Gandhi`	`L220`	`4800`
`9`	`M/s Automech`	`C-12/4`	`339`
	`Industries – Sanjay`
	`Nathmal Katariya`	`C-12/5` `C/12/4/1`	`420` `1350`
`10`		`A-22`	`2100`
	`M/s Tecno Track` `Engineering`	`A-40`	`1000`
		`A-47/4`	`5969`

¶178

(29)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶179

24.The learned Counsel for the petitioners

¶180

points out to the letter dated 15.09.2010 issued by

¶181

respondent no.5 and the Information Officer of the
MIDC wherein in answer to Question No. 8(c), it is
clearly mentioned that in the area of Ahmednagar MIDC,
the plots are being allotted by inviting tenders. He

¶182

further points out to the Circular dated 12.12.2007
issued by the Chief Executive Officer of the M.I.D.C.
wherein he has given the detail procedure for

¶183

allotment of plots of the MIDC by calling tenders. He
invites our attention to the Circular dated 14.05.2007

¶184

issued by the Chief Executive Officer of the MIDC
wherein the procedure for allotment of stray plots for
expansion of industry has been given. The learned
Counsel submits that the allotment of the plots
subject matter of the present petition has been done
in total breach of the above mentioned circulars. Due

¶185

to the said allotment, the public exchequer has been

¶186

subjected to a huge loss. The allotment of plots is
not at all transparent. Therefore, the allotment of
plots subject matter of this petition is liable to be
cancelled. In support of this contention, he placed

¶187

(30)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶188

reliance on the case of Real Team Systems Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors., Writ Petition
No.9279 of 2012 decided by the Bombay High Court on
20.02.2014 as also on Nagar Nigam, Meerut Vs. Al
Faheem Meat Exports Pvt. Ltd. and ors., 2006(13)SCC
382 and Mohamadiya Welfare Society Vs. State of
Maharashtra and ors., 2013(4)Bom.C.R.776

¶189

25.It is true that as per Regulation 4, the
plots of the MIDC can be allotted either by public
auction or by entertaining individual applications.
Undisputedly, the land of the MIDC, which is an
instrumentality of the State, is public property. The
learned Counsel for the petitioners points out to the
following observations of the Hon'ble the Supreme
Court made in the case of Sachidanand Pandey Vs. State

¶190

of West Bengal, AIR 1987 SC 1109, which are reproduced
in para 17 of the judgment in the case of Nagar Nigam,
Meerut (supra) :-

¶191

"On a consideration of the relevant cases
cited at the bar the following propositions may be
taken as well established : State owned or public
owned property is not to be dealt with at the

¶192

(31)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶193

absolute discretion of the executive. Certain
precepts and principles have to be observed.
Public interest is the paramount consideration.
One of the methods of securing the public interest
when it is considered necessary to dispose of a
property is to sell the property by public auction
or by inviting tenders. Though that is the
ordinary rule, it is not an invariable rule.
There may be situations where there are compelling
reasons necessitating departure from the rule but
then the reasons for the departure must be
rational and should not be suggestive of
discrimination. Appearance of public justice is
as important as doing justice. Nothing should be
done which gives an appearance of bias, jobbery or
nepotism. "

¶194

"The public property owned by the State or by
an instrumentality of the State should be
generally sold by public auction or by inviting
tenders. This Court has been insisting upon that
rule, not only to get the highest price for the
property but also to ensure fairness in the
activities of the State and public authorities.
They should undoubtedly act fairly. Their actions
should be legitimate. Their dealings should be
above board. Their transactions should be without
aversion or affection. Nothing should be
suggestive of discrimination. Nothing should be
done by them which gives an impression of bias,
favoritism or nepotism. Ordinarily, these factors
would be absent if the matter is brought to public
auction or sale by tenders. That is why the Court
repeatedly stated and reiterated that the State
owned properties are required to be disposed of
publicly. But that is not the only rule. As O.
Chinnappa Reddy, J. observed, "that though that is
the ordinary rule, it is not an invariable rule".
There may be situations necessitating departure
from the rule, but then such instances must be
justified by compulsions and not by compromise. It
must be justified by compelling reasons and not by
just convenience."

¶195

(32)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶196

In para 18 of the judgment in the case of Nagar
Nigam, Meerut (supra), the Hon'ble the Supreme Court
has observed thus :-

¶197

"The law is, thus, clear that ordinarily all
contracts by the Government or by an
instrumentality of the State should be granted
only by public auction or by inviting tenders,
after advertising the same in well known
newspapers having wide circulation, so that all
eligible persons will have opportunity to bid in
the bid, and there is total transparency. In our
opinion, this is an essential requirement in a
democracy, where the people are supreme, and all
official acts must be actuated by the public
interest, and should inspire public confidence. "

¶198

26.In the case at hand, a large number of plots
have been allotted by the Officers of the MIDC by
entertaining individual applications without assigning

¶199

any compelling reasons for doing so. Not only that,
the said officers did not even obtain prior approval

¶200

of the Committees concerned established by the MIDC at
the headquarters for allotment of these plots. There
is absolutely nothing on record to show as to why the
plots were not allotted by public auction or by
inviting tenders. The allotment of many plots to
certain families / industries ex facie indicate
nepotism, favourtism and bias. Though there is no bar

¶201

(33)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶202

to allot many plots to a single family or industry,
such allotment cannot be said to be fair and
transparent.

¶203

27. In Real Team Systems Pvt. Ltd. , (supra) a single plot bearing No. T-22 in Chikalthana Industrial area, which was adjacent to the plot of the petitioner - Company, was requested to be allotted to the petitioner - Company by sending an application to respondent no.4 - MIDC. The petitioner was assured that as and when the plot would be auctioned, preference would be given to the petitioner or even otherwise, if the plot was to be allotted, then preference would be given to it. Therefore, the petitioner had expected legitimately and reasonably that its application would be considered by the MIDC. However, the said plot was allotted to respondent no.5 - Company, without any tender or auction. The said action was challenged on the ground that it was contrary to the policy of the MIDC and even otherwise, illegal. After considering the relevant provisions, the Division Bench of this Court observed in para 27

¶204

(34)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶205

as under :-

¶206

"However, it is too late in the day to urge
that the corporation can, at its absolute will,
pleasure and without following the normal and
general rule of disposal of property by public
auction, deal with its lands by entertaining
individual applications. The purpose of inviting
applications and bids from interested parties and
by inserting an advertisement or publishing a
tender notice is obvious. That is to enable the
public body to obtain maximum returns or
competitive bids for disposal of its properties
and assets. It has been a well settled rule by
series of judgments of the Honourable Supreme
Court that sale of public property by private
negotiations is not visible to the public eye and
may even give rise to legal disputes. It should
not be permitted unless there are special reasons
to justify doing so. Public property owned by the
State or by any statutory body of the State should
be generally sold by public auction or by inviting
tenders not only to get the highest price but also
to ensure fairness in the activities of the State
and public authorities. "

¶207

28.So far as the Regulation providing for

¶208

disposal of plots by entertaining individual

¶209

applications is concerned, the Court observed in
para 29 as under :-

¶210

"It may be that, there is an exception as it
is normally and ordinarily there in every law,
namely, that a public body or a public corporation
may dispose of plots of land by entertaining
individual applications. However, such decisions
should be exceptional and not as a matter of rule.

¶211

(35)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶212

If the rule is that the public auction or open
tenders is the mode of disposal of public
property, then, exception cannot become the rule.
Merely because a individual application can be
entertained and property can be disposed of to
individuals does not mean that the corporation is
displaced from its position as a trustee of the
public. Even when the manner of disposal is of
this nature, the corporation is bound to act
fairly, reasonably and in a transparent manner.
It cannot pick and chose applications, nor it can
reject applications indiscriminately. The mandate
of Article 14 of the Constitution of India has to
be abided by even when the property is being
disposedofbyentertainingindividual
applications. "

¶213

Ultimately, the Court set aside the action of
allotment of plot No. T-22 in favour of respondent
no.5 therein and extended liberty to the MIDC to
dispose of the said plot by inviting tenders from
interested parties upon insertion of advertisement in
widely circulated newspapers.

¶214

29.In the present case, a large number of plots
have been allotted by the Officers of the MIDC by
entertaining individual applications, that too,
without following the due procedure for allotment of
plots. The then Regional Officers and Area Managers
of the MIDC allotted the plots subject matter of this
petition at their own level. They allotted a number

¶215

(36)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶216

of plots to some of the families and industries. They

¶217

did not even follow the procedure prescribed for

¶218

conversion of open spaces and amenity areas into
industrial/mercantile plots. There is no justification
at all for allotment of the said plots by entertaining
individual applications. The allotment of plots to

¶219

the members of respondent no.6 by the then Regional
Officers and Area Managers of the MIDC smells of
corruption, nepotism, favouritism and suffers from

¶220

illegalities. In the circumstances, the case of

¶221

Parshwanath Infra Tech Pvt. Ltd. (supra) would be of
no help to respondent nos.4, 5 and 6 to justify
allotment of plots by entertaining individual
applications. Consequently, in view of the judgments

¶222

in the cases of Real Team Systems Pvt. Ltd. (supra),
and Nagar Nigam, Merrut (supra), the allotment of all

¶223

the plots subject matter of this petition and
particularly referred to in the reports of Gatne
Committee and Internal Committee, by entertaining

¶224

individual applications, cannot be said to be
sustainable and is liable to be cancelled on this sole
count.

¶225

(37)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶226

ILLEGAL CONVERSION OF OPEN SPACES AND AMENITY AREAS

¶227

30.There is no dispute that while preparing
layout for development of land belonging to MIDC, the
concerned Development Control Regulations have to be
followed. As per Regulation 27 of the D.C.
Regulations, 1999, open spaces and amenity areas are
required to be kept in the Development Plan by the
MIDC, to the extent of 10% and 5%, respectively, out
of the total land. In para 6 of the affidavit filed
by Shri Pratap P. Jadhav, the Additional Collector
and Deputy Chief Executive Officer of the MIDC, it is
stated that as per the D.C. Regulations, 60% of the
total area is used for industrial purpose, 25% for
infrastructure such as roads, pipelines, etc., 10% as

¶228

open spaces and 5% for amenities such as post office,
telephone exchange, schools, colleges, educational
institution, training centres, etc. He has produced

¶229

the copy of the layout plan prepared in 1995 in
respect of MIDC, Nagapur, Ahmednagar. He has further
produced the MIDC, Ahmednagar, at Exhibit "F", page
717. He has further produced the layout plans of the

¶230

(38)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶231

said MIDC, prepared in 2004-05 and 2010-11, at pages
718 and 719, respectively.

¶232

31.The learned Counsel for the petitioners

¶233

submits that once the open spaces and amenity areas

¶234

are earmarked in the layout plan, the locations
thereof cannot be changed subsequently and the areas
thereof cannot be converted into industrial or
mercantile use. In support of this contention, he
strongly relies on the circular dated 02.04.1997
(Page 50) issued by the Chief Executive Officer,
MIDC, Andheri, Mumbai. In para 3 of the said
circular, it has been specifically mentioned that the

¶235

open spaces reserved as per the sanctioned layout

¶236

plan of industrial area should be duly fenced and
should not be allowed to be used for any other

¶237

purpose excepting for playgrounds, garden and

¶238

plantation. It has been further mentioned that in
case, any person, institution or Company demands such

¶239

open space, for any other purpose, the Officer
concerned should reject it on the ground that it
would be inconsistent with the layout plan. An Ad-

¶240

(39)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶241

hoc Committee was appointed under the said circular
comprising of the (1) President of Local Industries
Association, (2) Secretary of the Chamber of Commerce
of the concerned industrial area, (3) General Manager
of the District Industrial Centre or Joint Director
of Industries, (4) Executive Engineer of the MIDC, as
the Members and the Member, Regional Authority
Committee as a Member Secretary for considering the
proposal for change of user of open spaces. If the
said Committee decides to change the user of open
spaces, it should record reasons therefor and send a
report to the Head Office suggesting the proposed
change with specific recommendations. The Committee
at the headquarters comprising of the Chief Executive
Officer, the Chief Engineer and the Chief Planner
should consider such proposal and if need be, the
Chief Executive Officer should place such proposal
before the Board of Directors for taking final
decision. It is only after the said proposal is
considered by the Board of Directors, the decision
would be taken whether the layout plan should be
changed or not.

¶242

(40)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶243

32.The learned Counsel for the petitioners
submits that the open spaces shown in the layout plan
of 1995 have been converted into industrial /
mercantile purposes as seen from the layout plans of
2004-05 and 2010-11. He submits that the procedure
laid down in the circular dated 02.04.1997 has not at
all been followed for making the said changes in the

¶244

layout plan. Therefore, according to him, the
changes effected without following the due procedure
being arbitrary and illegal, are liable to be set
aside.

¶245

33.As against this, the learned Asst.
Government Pleader, on the basis of the affidavit
filed on behalf of respondent no.1, submits that in
view of the circulars dated 21.06.2011 (Page 714) and
05.09.2013 (Page 715), the MIDC was entitled to
change the user of the open spaces and convert them
into industrial or mercantile plots.

¶246

34.The circular dated 21.06.2011 prohibits
conversion of industrial plots into Residential,

¶247

(41)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶248

Educational, Institutional, Assembly, Mercantile,
etc., while the circular dated 05.09.2013 is in
respect of conversion of industrial plots into
mercantile plots. Both of these circulars do not
speak about conversion of open spaces into either
industrial or mercantile plots. Consequently, these
circulars would not be of any use to respondent no.1
to justify conversion of open spaces into industrial
or mercantile plots.

¶249

35.The Internal Committee mentioned in the

¶250

report dated 29.08.2011 that in case the plots were to
be de-reserved from open spaces or amenity areas, the
proposed layout was required to be placed before the
Minor Modification Committee (“M.M.C.” for short) at
the Headquarters for approval.

¶251

36.The learned Counsel for respondent nos.4 and
5, relying on the unreported judgment of the Bombay
High Court in Writ Petition No.3031 of 1999 delivered
on 11.04.2001 in the matter of Owens-Corning India
Ltd.Vs.MaharashtraIndustrialDevelopment

¶252

(42)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶253

Corporation, submits that the M.I.D.C. is empowered to
de-reserve an open space and use it for industrial
purpose.

¶254

37.He points out to the list containing 134
plots, subject matter of the report of Gatne Committee
and Internal Committee, in respect of which 10%
penalty has been paid in pursuance of the impugned
order dated 29.05.2013 and allotment thereof has been
regularised by respondent no.2. He, therefore,
submits that now there is no question of cancellation
of allotment of plots of these industrialists.

¶255

38.As per the Development Control Regulations
for M.I.D.C., 1999 and the Revised Development Control
Regulations, 2009, open space means an area forming
the integral part of the land left permanently open to
the sky. As per Regulations 27.1 and 21.5 of the
Regulations of 1999 and the Revised Regulations of
2009, in any layout or sub-division of land
admeasuring more than 1 Hectare for industrial purpose
and 0.5 Hectare for residential purpose, 10% of total

¶256

(43)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶257

area of land so sub-divided shall be reserved for open
space which shall, as far as practicable, be located

¶258

in one central place. As per Regulation 33.1 and
Regulation 21.6 of the Regulations, 1999 and the
Revised Regulations, 2009 respectively, in any layout
or sub-division of land admeasuring more than 1

¶259

Hectare for industrial purpose and 0.5 Hectare for
residential purpose, 5% of the total area of land so
sub-divided shall be reserved for amenity area.

¶260

produced with the petition contains the procedure for
change of user of the open spaces or amenity areas for
industrial or residential or mercantile use. It has
been stated that as far as possible, the request for
such change of user should, at the first blush, be
rejected by the Area Manager concerned on the ground

¶261

that such request is contrary to the proposed layout.

¶262

However, if it is found that such request is
reasonable, the Regional Officer of M.I.D.C. shall
submit his report containing his recommendations
supported with strong reasons to the Headquarters of

¶263

(44)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶264

M.I.D.C. for being considered by the Committee

¶265

comprising of Joint Chief Executive Officer, Chief

¶266

Engineer and Chief Planner for taking final decision.

¶267

The said Committee would place its report before the

¶268

Chief Executive Officer, who, in turn, if found
necessary, would place the matter for taking final
decision before the Board of Directors and then only,
the final decision would be taken about effecting
change in the layout plan or otherwise. Certain
guidelines have been given in the said Circular
governing change in the layout plan of M.I.D.C. area.

¶269

40.It was noticed that there used to be some

¶270

delay in taking decision in respect of change in
layout plan of M.I.D.C. by the Committee constituted

¶271

as per the Circular dated 02.04.1997. Therefore, for
taking decision speedily as per the Office Order dated

¶272

11.05.2007 (page 49) issued by the Chief Executive

¶273

Officer of M.I.D.C., the Committee at the Headquarters
of M.I.D.C. comprising of the Joint Chief Executive

¶274

Officer, Chief Planner, concerned Deputy Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Engineer (Headquarter)

¶275

(45)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶276

came to be constituted for taking final decision in

¶277

respect of change in the layout plan of M.I.D.C.

¶278

41.In the case of Owens-Corning India Ltd.
(supra) cited by the learned Counsel for respondent
nos.4 and 5, the decision of the M.I.D.C. to

¶279

dereserve the open space being plot No.OS 33, M.I.D.C.
Phase II, Taloja and to allot the said plot to a
Company (the second respondent in that case) for
industrial use was challenged. As seen from the facts

¶280

of the said case, the application of the

¶281

respondent/Company was placed before the Land
Allotment Committee comprising of the Joint Chief
Executive Officer, the Chief Engineer and the Chief

¶282

Planner. The Committee decided to convert Plot No.OS
33 as Plot No.T 21 Part. The matter was placed before
the Space Allotment Committee comprising the Regional

¶283

Officer, Mahape, Executive Engineer, Alibag, General

¶284

Manager, DIC (Alibag) and President of the Taloja
Manufacturers Association for conversion of the open

¶285

space into the industrial plots. The Committee
approved the proposal on the condition that the plot

¶286

(46)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶287

bearing Nos.L-71 and L-70 be converted into the open
space to maintain stipulation as per the D.C.
Regulations. Upon receiving approval for open space,
the Chief Executive Officer approved conversion of
plot No.OS 33 and the said plot was allotted to the
respondent/Company on payment of requisite premium and

¶288

the same had been placed in possession of the
respondent/Company.

¶289

42.The question for determination that was
before the Hon'ble Court was, whether the Special
Planning Authority was required to follow the

¶290

procedure prescribed under Section 37 of the M.R.T.P.
Act while making changes in the layout plan prepared
for industrial area. It was held that M.I.D.C. being
the Special Planning Authority, is not required to
follow the procedure prescribed under Section 37 of
M.R.T.P. Act for the purpose of making any change in
the existing layout plan of M.I.D.C. It was further
held that the decision of the Land Allotment Committee

¶291

being consistent with the D.C. Regulations of
M.I.D.C., needed no interference.

¶292

(47)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶293

43.In the present case, as seen from the report of

¶294

Gatne Committee and the Internal Committee, the
procedure laid down in the above referred Circulars
for change in layout plan of the M.I.D.C., was not at
all followed. The proposed conversion of open spaces
into industrial or mercantile plots was not at all
referred to the above referred Committees for
approval. In the circumstances, the judgment in the

¶295

case of Owens-Corning India Ltd. (supra) would be of
no help to respondent nos.4 and 5 to justify
conversion of open spaces into industrial/mercantile
plots by respondent nos.4 and 5 at their own level
without obtaining approval from the above referred
Committees constituted at the Headquarters of the
M.I.D.C.

¶296

44.It has been mentioned in the impugned order
dated 29.05.2013 that as seen from the noting dated
05.04.2010 at pages N/1 to N/7 (Exhibit R-5) the Joint

¶297

Chief Executive Officer has approved the changes in
the layout plan of M.I.D.C. on 07.04.2010. The copy of

¶298

(48)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶299

the said noting is produced by respondent no.5 with
the affidavit-in-reply. It is a proposal made by the

¶300

Deputy Planner to the Senior Town Planner, Chief
Planner, Joint Chief Executive Officer and the Chief
Officer. It seems that the said proposal has been
approved by Town Planner and Chief Town Planner on

¶301

01.04.2010 and 05.04.2010, respectively. However, it
does not seem to have been approved by the Deputy
Chief Executive Officer and the Joint Chief Executive

¶302

Officer. Any-way, no justification has been given in
the proposal dated 05.04.2010 (Exhibit R-5) to change
the user and locations of the open spaces. The open
spaces and amenity areas are fixed at particular
places in the layout plan considering the utility
thereof at those places. The open spaces work as the

¶303

lungs for the total area of land where they are
located. Their locations could not and should not be

¶304

changed indiscriminately at the whims of the Officer

¶305

concerned. If the locations of the open spaces and
amenity areas are to be changed, it would be necessary

¶306

to give sufficient justification so that it would
reveal that the object of keeping open spaces and

¶307

(49)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶308

amenity areas would be fulfilled by the proposed
changes.

¶309

45. As seen from the above referred provisions of the D.C. Regulations in respect of recreational open spaces within the layout, they shall, as far as practicable, be located in one central place. Neither in the submission note (Exhibit R-5) nor in the impugned order, any justification has been given for change of locations of open spaces and amenity areas. Leaving open spaces and amenity areas equivalent to 10% and 5% of the land of M.I.D.C. at any place at the whim of the Planner without any justification, would not serve the purpose of leaving such open spaces in the land of M.I.D.C. Consequently, ex-post-facto approval to the change in the locations of open spaces and amenity areas, allegedly given by the Joint Chief Executive Officer and confirmed by respondent no.2, cannot be said to be legal, proper and correct.

¶310

46.Thus, though change in the user of the open
spaces and amenity areas into industrial/ mercantile

¶311

(50)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶312

plots is permissible under the D.C. Regulations of
M.I.D.C, since the changes in the locations of the
open spaces and amenity areas in the present case have
not been effected as per the prescribed procedure,
they cannot be said to be permissible under the law.

¶313

47.In the circumstances, though it is the case
of respondents 4 and 5, that open spaces to the extent
of 10 % and amenity areas to the extent of 5 % have

¶314

been reserved in the layout of the MIDC, even after
converting the open spaces and amenity areas into
industrial / mercantile plots, it would not justify
the conversion of open spaces and amenity areas into
industrial / mercantile plots which has been effected
by totally ignoring the prescribed procedure for such
conversion.

¶315

PLOTS UNLAWFULLY SUB-LET, TRANSFERRED, CONSTRUCTED IN MARGINAL OPEN SPACES

¶316

48.The Internal Committee noticed that certain

¶317

seven allottees carried out necessary construction on

¶318

their respective plots and obtained Building

¶319

(51)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶320

Construction Certificates (BCC). However, they did not
start their own industries on their plots, instead,

¶321

the third parties started their industries on the said
plots. It was found that the original allottees had
sold out the said plots to the industrialists who were
actually running their industries therein. It was
further noticed that there was illegal construction by
encroaching upon the marginal spaces of those plots.
The said plots were divided into two to four sub-plots
by the industrialists at their own, without obtaining
permission from the Regional Officer or Headquarters.
The description of the said plots has been given in
Proformas 2 and 5, as under :-

¶322

(PROFORMA 2)

¶323

[kqY;k tkxk@lqfo/kk {ks=kr eq[;ky;kph iqoZ ijokuxh u ?ksrk m|ksx foLrkjklkBh vkjs[ku d:u okVi dsysY;k Hkw[kaMkoj voS/k iksV HkkMsd:] gLrkarj o lkekfld lqj{kk varjkr cka/kdke vlysys izi= Ø- 2

¶324

`Sr.` `No.`	`Carved` `out in` `O.S.A.M`	`Plot` `No.`	`Area` `Sqm`	`Position as on` `30.06.2011`	`Remarks`
`1`	`OS-15`	`G-32/1`	`3080`	`Only Structure`
`2`	`AM-43`	`G/83 PT`	`500`	`-`

¶325

(52)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶326

`3`	`OS-6`	`M-16PT`	`600`	`M-16 25% use` `unauthorized` `Construction`
`4`	`AM-4`	`M-74/1`	`1310`	`M-74 Subletting` `for transfer`
`5`	`AM-21`	`W-36/PT` `(36/C/2` `/PT)`	`912`	`W-36 Marginal` `space construction` `& 30% use` `production`
`6`	`OS-21`	`W-31 PT`	`2000`	`W-31/A 720` `Subletting` `transfer for to OM`
`7`	`AM-36`	`G-41/1`	`2810`	`G-41 23% use &` `Production`
`Tot`	`al Area`		`11212`

¶327

(PROFORMA 5)

¶328

[kqY;k tkxk@lqfo/kk {ks=kr eq[;ky;kph iqoZ ijokuxh u ?ksrk vkjs[ku ijarq okVi dsysY;k Hkw[kaMkoj] iksVHkkMsd: gLrkarj o lkekfld lqj{kk varjkr voS/k cka/kdke vlysys izi= Ø- 5

¶329

`Sr` `No`	`Carved out` `in` `O.S.A.M.`	`Plot No.`	`Area` `Sqm`	`Position As on` `30.06.2011`	`Remarks`
`1`	`OS-7/AM-19`	`M-97`	`600`	`Transfer/` `subletting` `marginal space` `& construction` `& production`
`2`	`OS-7/AM-19`	`M-100`	`600`	`Subletting &` `production`

¶330

(53)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶331

`3`	`OS-24`	`G-20/8 PT`	`4050`	`marginal space` `tin shade &` `production`
`4`	`AM-27`	`P-152/1`	`150`	`Subletting &` `production`
`5`	`AM-27`	`P-152/2`	`150`	`subletting`
`6`	`AM-27`	`P-152/3`	`150`	`subletting`
`7`	`AM-27`	`P-152/4`	`480`	`Subletting &` `residential` `use`
`8`	`AM-27`	`P-152/6`	`180`	`subletting`
`9`	`OS-22`	`P-40/1`	`3286`	`Unauthorized` `construction`
`10`	`AM-52`	`P-40/A/2`	`300`	`to be transfer` `MS` `construction`
`11`	`AM-24`	`P-93/1/1`	`449`	`three` `subletting`
`12`	`AM-27`	`P-93/1/2`	`260`	`unauthorized` `sub division &` `residential` `use`
`13`	`AM-27`	`P-152/5`	`150`	`unauthorized` `sub division &` `subletting`
`14`	`AM-27`	`P/152/2`	`150`	`Unauthorized` `sub division &` `varies` `business in` `same plot`
`15`	`PL-1`	`L-81B`	`4140`	`-`

¶332

(54)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶333

`16`	`OS-17`	`F-78`	`7000`	`Unauthorised` `three sub` `division &` `transfer`
`17`	`OS-17`	`F-79`	`4000`	`Unauthorised` `two sub` `division &` `transfer`
`18`	`AM-4`	`M-74/1`	`1200`	`BCC &` `production but` `yet to` `transfer`
`19`	`OS-7`	`M-98-99`	`1200`	`sub division &` `residential` `use`
`20`	`AM-13`	`L-135/5`	`2566`	`Marginal space` `construction &` `subletting`
`21`	`AM-12`	`L-135/5/1`	`2895`	`Very small` `construction&` `total plot` `subletting for` `godown purpose`
`22`	`AM-13`	`L-135/5/2`	`4120`	`Marginal space` `construction`
`23`	`AM-12`	`L-135/6`	`7630`	`under` `construction` `(open tin` `shed)`
`24`	`OS-26&15`	`L-154/1`	`6756`	`very small` `construction` `open godown` `vehicle use`
`25`	`AM-24`	`A-47/1` `PART`	`900`	`Subletting &` `marginal space` `construction` `plan approve`
`26`	`AM-29`	`D-67/2`	`1200`	`unser`

¶334

(55)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶335

				`construction`
`27`	`AM-36`	`G-41/2`	`800`	`BCC but no` `production`
`28`	`AM-27`	`G-47/4`	`3745`	`unauthorised` `sub division &` `under` `construction`
`29`	`OS-14`	`L-131/2`	`1060`	`marginal space` `construction,` `subletting &` `production`
				`BCC but no`
`30`	`OS-14`	`L-132/1`	`1250`	`production &` `submitted` `transfer`
`31`	`OS-14`	`L-132/2`	`1060`	`marginal space` `(three sides)` `construction &` `production`
`32`	`AM-13`	`L-135/5`	`2566`	`Marginal space` `construction &` `sublet for` `godown purpose`
`33`	`AM-12`	`L-135/5/1`	`2895`	`Very small` `construction &` `total plot` `sublet for` `godown purpose`
`34`	`OS-14`	`L-132/1`	`1250`	`BCC but no` `production`
`35`	`OS-14`	`L-132/2`	`1060`	`marginal space` `(three sides)` `construction &` `production`
`36`	`AM-21`	`L-243/1`	`1600`	`Construction,` `but no` `production`

¶336

(56)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶337

`37`	`AM-21`	`L-243/3`	`1000`	`transfer to` `Rajendra` `Kothari M/s.` `R.K.Industries` `Plot in` `production.`
`38`	`B-113` `(Sub.Div)`	`B-113/1`	`3229`	`Illegal` `Transfer`
`39`	`RH-6`	`L-135/1`	`1583`	`Under` `construction`
`40`	`AM-28`	`W-32BPT`	`10352`	`Marginal Space` `Const. & Resi.` `use`
`41`	`Vacant`	`X-19/8`	`2117`	`subletting`
`42`	`Vacant`	`X-10/1`	`1164`	`unauthorised` `use`
`43`	`Vacant`	`X-10/2`	`1656`	`unauthorised` `use`
`44`	`Vacant`	`X-10/3`	`363`	`unauthorised` `use`
`45`	`RH-6`	`L-135/2`	`1684`	`unauthorised` `use`
`T`	`otal Area`		`94996`

¶338

49.It is reported that 7 allottees as mentioned
in Proforma 2 and 45 allottees as mentioned in
Proforma 5 have unlawfully sublet or otherwise
delivered possession of their respective plots to the
third persons unauthorisedly. As per the Forms of

¶339

(57)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶340

Leases given in the Schedule of the Regulations of

¶341

1975, the allottee/leasee is not allowed to assign
under-let or part with the possession of the plot or
any part thereof or any interest therein without
previous written consent of the Chief Executive
Officer and the Chief Executive Officer may, in his
absolute discretion, refuse such consent or grant the
same subject to condition as he thinks fit including
condition of payment of premium. Some of the
allottees of the plots, who, without obtaining
previous written consent of the Chief Executive
Officer, have sub-let, assigned or parted with the

¶342

possession of the plots to some third persons in
breach of the said condition. Consequently, the Chief
Executive Officer can treat the lease as terminated

¶343

and resume possession of such plots. The Chief
Executive Officer will have to be directed to conduct

¶344

necessary enquiry in respect of such plots and take

¶345

appropriate steps to resume possession thereof. The
allottees of such plots would not be entitled to get

¶346

refund of the premium paid by them. However, the
allottees of the plots or their assignees would be

¶347

(58)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶348

entitled to remove their superstructures, machineries,
other movables, etc. from over the said plot within

¶349

the time given by the Chief Executive officer, failing
which the said superstructures, machineries, other
movables, etc. would stand vested in the Chief
Executive Officer without paying any compensation or
allowance to the allottees concerned. The Chief
Executive Officer may remove the same at the cost of
the original allottee.

¶350

50.It is further mentioned in the Internal

¶351

Committee Report that construction has been carried
out over some of the plots described in Proformas 2
and 5 by encroaching upon the marginal open spaces. As

¶352

per Regulation 38 of the D.C. Regulations of 1999 and
Regulation 24 of the D.C. Regulations of 2009,
marginal open spaces are required to be left open
around the buildings. Thus, it would be incumbent on

¶353

the part of the allottees to leave marginal open
spaces open around the buildings as mentioned in these
Regulations. Otherwise, the construction of the
buildings to the extent it enters into the marginal

¶354

(59)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶355

open spaces around the buildings would be unauthorised
and illegal. Such unauthorised development is liable

¶356

to be demolished as per Regulation 20.1 of the D.C.
Regulations, 1999. Moreover, as per Section 44 of the
M.I.D. Act, 1961, where the erection of any building
in an industrial estate or industrial area has been

¶357

commenced or is being carried on, or has been
completed, or any existing building is altered, in
contravention of the terms on which such building or
the land on which it stands is held or granted under
this Act, any Officer of the Corporation empowered by
it in this behalf may, in addition to any prosecution

¶358

that may be instituted under this Act, make an order
directing that such erection shall be demolished by
the owner thereof within such period not exceeding two

¶359

months as may be specified in the order, and on
failure of the owner to comply with the order, the

¶360

Officer may himself cause the erection to be
demolished and the expenses of such demolition shall
be recoverable by the Corporation from the owner.
However, no such order shall be made unless the owner
has been given a reasonable opportunity to show cause

¶361

(60)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶362

why the order should not be made. In addition to this
action, the defaulting allottee is liable to be
prosecuted vide Section 46 of the said Act. The Chief
Executive Officer of M.I.D.C., therefore, will have to
be directed to take necessary steps vide Sections 44
and 46 of the M.I.D. Act against the allottees who
have carried out the construction within the marginal
spaces around the buildings.

¶363

THE PLOTS WHICH HAVE BEEN KEPT VACANT

¶364

51.The Internal Committee found that 24 and 26

¶365

allottees of the plots from the open spaces/amenity
areas as mentioned in Proformas 1 and 4, respectively,

¶366

have kept the said plots vacant. Therefore, the
Committee opined that allotment of the said plots
should be cancelled and they should be taken back from
the said allottees. The description of such plots

¶367

given in Proformas 1 and 4, as under :-

¶368

(61)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶369

(PROFORMA 1)

¶370

[kqY;k tkxk@lqfo/kk {ks=kr eq[;ky;kph iqoZ ijokuxh u ?ksrk m|ksx foLrkjklkBh vkjs[ku d:u okVi dsysys ek= fjdkes vlysys Hkw[kaMkps izi= Ø- 1

¶371

`SR` `NO`	`Carved` `out in` `O.S./A.M.`	`Plot No.`	`Area in` `m`²	`Position As` `on` `30.06.2011`
`1`	`AM-37`	`G-53PT`	`1000`	`Vacant` `(Compound` `Wall)`
`2`	`AM-34`	`G-122/IPT`	`595`	`Vacant`
`3`	`AM-38`	`B-78PT`	`2000`	`Vacant`
`4`	`OS-14`	`L-135/4PT`	`1560`	`Vacant`
`5`	`OS-14`	`L-141/PT`	`770`	`Vacant`
`6`	`OS-6`	`M-16/1`	`600`	`Vacant`
`7`	`AM-6`	`M-82PT`	`1258`	`Vacant`
`8`	`AM-25`	`A-36PT`	`1500`	`Vacant`
`9`	`AM-35`	`A-35-PT`	`1537`	`Vacant`
`10`	`AM-44`	`A-63-PT`	`1347`	`Vacant`
`11`	`AM-20`	`F-21PT`	`1564`	`Vacant`
`12`	`PL-1`	`G-114PT`	`5710`	`Vacant` `(Compound` `Wall)`
`13`	`AM-43/1`	`G-77PT`	`1500`	`Not` `Visible` `layout`
`14`	`AM-3`	`M-54PT`	`597`	`Vacant`
`15`	`AM-2`	`M-67PT`	`554`	`Vacant`
`16`	`AM-21`	`L-9PT`	`1400`	`Vacant`
`17`	`AM-25`	`L-81/A/PT`	`1500`	`Vacant`

¶372

(62)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶373

`18`	`AM-5`	`L-115PT`	`896`	`Vacant`
`19`	`OS-6`	`M-15PT`	`600`	`Vacant`
`20`	`AM-23`	`L-226PT`	`5218`	`Vacant`
`21`	`OS-7`	`M-27PT`	`1200`	`Vacant`
`22`	`PL-1`	`G-122/2PT`	`14622`	`Vacant`
`23`	`AM-16`	`L-1 PT`	`1596`	`Vacant`
`24`	`AM-11`	`M-11 PT`	`600`	`Vacant`
`Tot`	`al Area`		`49724`

¶374

(PROFORMA 4)

¶375

[kqY;k tkxk@lqfo/kk {ks=kr eq[;ky;kph iqoZ ijokuxh u ?ksrk ufou m|kstdklkBh vkjs[ku d:u okVi dsysYks ijarq Hkw[kaM fjdkes vlysys izi= Ø-4

¶376

	`Carved out`			`Position As`

`.` `No.`	`in` `O.S.A.M.`	`Plot No.`	`Sqm`	`on` `30.06.2011`	`Remarks`
`1`	`AM-24`	`A-47/2`	`3210`	`Plinth` `Level`
`2`	`AM-24`	`A/47/3`	`3210`	`Plinth` `Level`
`3`	`OS-17`	`F/76`	`10000`	`Vacant`
`4`	`OS-17`	`F/77`	`10000`	`Vacant`
`5`	`OS-25`	`G-23/3`	`2500`	`Vacant`
`6`	`OS-13`	`L-135/3`	`4905`	`Vacant`
`7`	`OS-11`	`L-255`	`6265`	`Vacant`
`8`	`AM-29`	`D/67/1`	`1000`	`Vacant`
`9`	`OS-25`	`G-23/1`	`2498`	`Vacant`

¶377

(63)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶378

`10`	`OS-25`	`G/23/2`	`2498`	`Vacant`
`11`	`OS-14`	`L-131/1`	`1250`	`Vacant`
`12`	`OS-32`	`L-214/1`	`1580`	`Vacant`
`13`	`AM-21`	`L-243/2`	`1000`	`Plinth` `Level`
`14`	`AM-2`	`M-48/1`	`1383`	`Plinth` `Level`
`15`	`AM-7`	`M-87`	`600`	`Plinth` `Level`
	`OS-9`
`16`	`OS-7`	`M-95`	`510`	`Plinth` `Level`
	`AM-17`
`17`	`AM-27`	`F-46PT`	`10354`	`Plinth` `Level`
`18`	`OS-24`	`G-16/2PT`	`4800`	`Plinth` `Level`
`19`	`OS-27`	`G-47/2`	`1398`	`Plinth` `Level`
`20`	`OS-27`	`G-47/3`	`1878`	`Plinth` `Level`
`21`	`AM-27`	`G-115/1`	`8067`	`Plinth` `Level`
`22`	`AM-27`	`P-152/7/A`	`900`	`Plinth` `Level`
`23`	`OS-16,17`	`X-34`	`294`	`Plinth` `Level`
`24`	`OS-4`	`M-81/1`	`1721`	`Vacant`
`25`	`Vacant` `List`	`X-10/4`	`1307`	`Vacant`
`26`	`Vacant` `List`	`X-11`	`2197`	`Vacant`
`To`	`tal Area`		`85325`

¶379

(64)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶380

52.The above-mentioned plots have been kept

¶381

vacant by the allottees concerned. As per the terms

¶382

of the lease agreement, an allottee is bound within 3
months of the date of the agreement to submit to the
Executive Engineer, MIDC, for his approval the
specifications, plans, elevations, sections and
details of the factory building to be erected,
complete erection of the building within the given
time and start production. In case the allottee fails

¶383

to complete the factory building within the given
time, the Chief Executive Officer, MIDC is empowered
to terminate the lease and resume possession of the
plot without paying any compensation, allowance or

¶384

premium to the allottee. In the present case, the
above-referred plots have been illegally carved out

¶385

and allotted from the open spaces/amenity areas by
entertaining individual applications and on the top of

¶386

it they have been kept vacant. For all these reasons,
allotment of the said plots is liable to be cancelled
and the Chief Executive Officer, MIDC is entitled to

¶387

(65)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶388

resume possession thereof without paying any

¶389

compensation, allowance or premium to the allottees
concerned.

¶390

EQUITY TO THE ALLOTTEES OF THE PLOTS

¶391

53.As seen from the reports of Gatne Committee
and the Internal Committee, certain Officers of the
M.I.D.C., at their own level, carved out plots from

¶392

the open spaces and amenity areas allotted them and
unauthorisedly. In view of the circulars referred to
above and the decision in the case of Owens-Corning

¶393

India Ltd. (supra) spaces can be converted into
industrial plots provided the prescribed procedure is
followed. If certain plots carved out from the open

¶394

spaces and amenity areas are found by the Minor
Modification Committee worth regularising according to
law, the interests of the bonafide allottees of those
plots will have to be protected. If such plots are
liable to be used for industrial/mercantile purposes,

¶395

the allottees of the said plots will have to be given
opportunity to continue to hold them by allowing them

¶396

(66)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶397

to participate in the public auction. If they offer
highest premium, they will be entitled to retain the
said plots. The premium paid by them at the time of
receiving the said plots as also the amounts paid by
them in pursuance of the impugned order passed by
respondent no.2 would carry simple interest at the
rate of 8% per annum from the respective dates of
payments thereof till the date of public auction and

¶398

the amount so calculated would be liable to be
adjusted towards the amount of highest premium offered

¶399

by them in the public auction. The excess amount would
be payable by them to get the plots allotted to them.

¶400

In case any of the original allottees does not offer
highest premium, he will have to be compensated by
directing refund of the amount of premium paid by him

¶401

as well as the amount paid by him in pursuance of the
impugned order passed by respondent no.2 with interest

¶402

at the rate of 8% per annum from the respective dates

¶403

of such payments till the date of refund thereof. The
value of the superstructures, machineries and other
articles attached to the earth as fixed by the
Government Valuer also would be liable to be paid to

¶404

(67)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶405

him. However, no such equitable relief can be granted

¶406

in favour of the allottees in case the conversion of

¶407

regularised.

¶408

PLOTS ALLOTTED UNLAWFULLY BUT WHEREON PRODUCTION IS GOING ON

¶409

54.The Internal Committee noticed that three

¶410

allottees of the plots carved out from open
spaces/amenity areas and allotted for expansion of
industries, without seeking prior approval from the
headquarter as described in Proforma 3, have started
their production. Description of the plots given in
Proforma 3 is as under :-

¶411

(PROFORMA 3)

¶412

[kqY;k tkxk@lqfo/kk {ks=kr eq[;ky;kph iqoZ ijokuxh u ?ksrk m|ksx foLrkjklkBh vkjs[ku ijarq okVi dsysY;k Hkw[kaMkoj mRiknu lq: vlysys izi= Ø- 3

¶413

`Sr.` `No.`	`Carved` `out in` `O.S.A.M`	`Plot` `No`	`Area` `in` `m2`	`Position` `As on` `30.06.2011`	`Origi-` `nal` `Plot` `No.`	`Area` `in` `m2`	`Positi` `-on As` `on` `30.06.` `2011`
`1`	`OS-22`	`A-` `47/4`	`9625`	`24.43%` `Construct-` `ion &` `Production`	`A-22`	`2100`	`Produ-` `ction`

¶414

(68)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶415

`2`	`AM-29`	`C-` `12/4` `/1`	`1350`	`is not in` `Lay out`	`C-12/4`	`339`	`Produ-` `ction`
`3`	`AM-34`	`G-` `24PT`	`828`	`Plan` `approved` `under` `Constructi`	`C-24`	`1250`	`Produ-` `ction`
				`on`
`Tot`	`al Area`		`11803`

¶416

55.The Internal Committee further noticed that

¶417

11 plots carved out from the open spaces/amenity
areas, as mentioned in Proforma 6, were allotted to
new industrialists without seeking prior approval
from the Headquarters, have completed construction of

¶418

their industries and started production. The
description of such plots given at Proforma 6 is as

¶419

under:-

¶420

[kqY;k tkxk@lqfo/kk {ks=kr eq[;ky;kph iqoZ ijokuxh u ?ksrk ufou m|kstdklkBh vkjs[ku ijarq okVi dsysY;k Hkw[kaMkoj mRiknu lq: vlysys izi= Ø- 6

¶421

`Sr.` `No.`	`Carved out` `in O.S.A.M.`	`Plot` `No.`	`Area` `Sqm`	`Position As` `on` `30.06.2011`	`Remarks`
`1`	`AM-24`	`A-47/1`	`1720`	`11%` `Construction` `10% BCC &` `production`

¶422

(69)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶423

`2`	`OS-7,AM-10`	`M-88`	`600`	`BCC`
`3`	`OS-7-AM-13`	`M-91`	`510`	`BCC &` `production`
`4`	`OS-7-AM-14`	`M-92`	`510`	`BCC &` `production` `but Yet to` `transfer`
`5`	`OS-7-AM-15`	`M-93`	`510`	`production`
`6`	`OS-7-AM-16`	`M-94`	`510`	`BCC &` `production`
`7`	`OS-27`	`G-47/1`	`600`	`BCC &` `production`
`8`	`PL-4`	`G-126`	`6600`	`BCC & final` `lease`
`9`	`VACANT LIST`	`P-60`	`300`	`BCC`
`10`	`VACANT LIST`	`X-32/1`	`1750`	`BCC &` `Construction` `& Business`
`11`	`VACANT LIST`	`X-32/2`	`2716`	`BCC`
`T`	`otal Area`		`16326`

¶424

56.There may be certain workers/officers serving
in the above-mentioned industrial units. In case, the
plot concerned is legally regularised on receiving
proposal received from respondent nos.3 and 4, it
should be put up for public action. The original
allottee may retain that plot by offering highest
premium. If the original allottee does not offer
highest premium and retain such plot, the plot along

¶425

(70)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶426

with the industrial unit and the workers/officers

¶427

serving therein would be transferred to the new

¶428

allottee who would offer highest premium. The said
workers/officers would be governed by the same terms
and conditions by which, they were being governed
prior to transfer of such plots. It will be necessary
to specifically mention such condition in the notice
of public auction as well as in the auction documents,
so that the interests of the workers/officers serving

¶429

there could be safeguarded. If the plot, where
production is going on, cannot be legally regularised,
then allotment of such plot would stand cancelled and

¶430

the Chief Executive Officer would be empowered to
resume possession thereof without paying any
compensation or premium to the allottee concerned.

¶431

The allottee concerned would be entitled to remove the

¶432

superstructures, machineries, other movables, etc.
standing on the plot concerned within the given time,
failing which the Chief Executive Officer would get it
removed at the cost of the allottee concerned.

¶433

(71)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶434

57.As per the order dated 08.05.2014 passed by

¶435

this Court, the M.I.D.C. was ordered to permit each of

¶436

the entrepreneurs/allottees to continue with the
development, establish industrial units and commence
the production/business activity subject to furnishing
undertaking by each of the allottees agreeing for a
condition that whatever development that would be
carried over the industrial plot, shall be subject to
final outcome of this petition and the allottees shall

¶437

remove such development and restore the original
position of the industrial plots in the event of
success of this petition and issuance of order to that

¶438

effect. It was further directed that the allottees

¶439

shall agree not to claim equities on the basis of
modification of interim order permitting them to
continue with the industrial/business activities.
Accordingly, 88 members of respondent no.6 furnished
undertakings before this Court and the same were

¶440

accepted. Those who did not furnish undertakings were
not entitled to get benefit of the interim order dated
08.05.2014.

¶441

(72)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶442

58.In view of this position, only because some

¶443

of the allottees of plots developed their plots and

¶444

started production in pursuance of the order dated
08.05.2014, they would not be entitled to claim any
equity on that basis when the very allotment of plots
is not justifiable and permissible under the law for

¶445

the reasons recorded above. Even then, this Court
tried to safeguard the interests of the allottees of

¶446

the plots in case conversion thereof into

¶447

industrial/mercantile plots is liable to be
regularised by allowing them to participate in the
public auction and retain the plots by offering
highest premium or get refund of the amounts of
premium along with interest. So far as the
superstructures, machineries and other movables
standing over and attached to the plots allotted to
them are concerned, necessary directions will have to

¶448

be given to fix the value thereof through the
Government Valuer, so that the same could be ordered

¶449

to be paid to the allottee concerned, in case he does
not offer highest premium for getting the said plot.
In our view, this much equitable relief can be granted

¶450

(73)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶451

in favour of the allottees who do not wish to retain

¶452

the plots allotted to them by offering highest premium

¶453

in the public auction. Nothing would be liable to be
paid to the allottees of the plots which are not
liable to be regularised, who have unauthorisedly sub-

¶454

let or in any manner transferred their respective

¶455

plots, who have not started using the plots for the
purpose for which they were allotted to them and kept

¶456

them vacant, who carried out development by

¶457

encroaching upon the marginal open spaces etc. and
possession of such plots is liable to be resumed by
the Chief Executive Officer of the MIDC.

¶458

MISSING FILES

¶459

59.It is reported by the Committee headed by

¶460

Shri. Gatne as well as the Internal Committee that

¶461

some of the files in respect of allotment of plots

¶462

were not traced out. However, the reports are totally
silent about such plots. It is not difficult to bring

¶463

on record the details of such plots, the status

¶464

thereof and the manner in which they have been

¶465

(74)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶466

allotted to the allotees concerned. Therefore, it
would be necessary to direct respondent no.4 to
prepare a list of the plots in respect of which files
are missing, furnish details thereof, point out the
manner in which the said plots have been allotted and
whether they have been carved out from the plots
demarked in the layout or otherwise, so that necessary
orders could be passed in respect of those plots. It
is further necessary to conduct enquiry against the
custodians of the missing files so that requisite
penalty can be imposed against them. If necessary,
penal action also can be initiated against them. If
necessary, penal action also can be initiated against
them.

¶467

ENQUIRY AGAINST THE ERRING OFFICERS

¶468

60.The petitioners have given the names of S/Shri.
P.J.Shinde, R.K.Gawade, Gajanan Patil and Ramdas
Khedkar as persons responsible for allotment of the
plots from the open spaces and amenity areas
straightway by entertaining individual applications.

¶469

However, respondent nos.4 and 5, in paragraph 4 of
their additional affidavit (page 250), stated that the

¶470

M.I.D.C. has initiated action and suspended S/Shri Patwa and Mandape who were found prima facie responsible for committing irregularities on 16.06.2010. They further stated that departmental

¶471

enquiry is going on against those Officers. Thus,
there is total difference in the names of the persons
and Officers involved in the illegal allotment of the
plots. Moreover, S/Shri Patwa and Mandape have been

¶472

subjected to departmental enquiry in respect of the
irregularities committed on 16.06.2010 only, while the
illegal/unauthorised allotment of the plots subject
matter of the reports of Gatne Committee and Internal
Committee, has taken place during 2006 to 2010.
Naturally, some other Officers also are involved in
this illegal/unauthorised allotment of plots.

¶473

Therefore, respondent no.4 will have to be directed to
initiate necessary inquiry against the erring Officers

¶474

involved in allotment of plots illegally and
unauthorisedly during 2006 to 2010 as mentioned in the
reports of Gatne Committee and Internal Committee. So

¶475

(76)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶476

that stringent departmental as well as penal action
could be taken against them.

¶477

INVESTIGATION INTO THE ALLEGED CONVERSATION BETWEEN PETITIONER NO.1 AND THE DIRECTOR OF M/S. SIDDHI FORGING PVT. LTD.

¶478

petitioner no.1 is a blackmailer. He demanded money
from Shri. Waghmode, Director of M/s.Siddhi Forging
Pvt. Ltd. (allottee of 9 plots) for withdrawing the

¶479

name of M/s.Siddhi Forging Pvt. Ltd. from the Public
Interest Litigation. The photocopy of the script of

¶480

that conversation is produced at page 153 (Exhibit

¶481

'R-2'). As observed above, in the absence of a

¶482

certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, no
authenticity could be attached to this conversation.

¶483

However, if really the demand has been made by

¶484

petitioner no.1 for money for withdrawing the name of
M/s.Siddhi Forging Pvt. Ltd., it would be a very

¶485

serious matter. Therefore, we think fit to extend
liberty to Shri. Waghmode to produce the authentic
script of the alleged conversation along with the
certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act and

¶486

(77)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶487

lodge a report to the police station concerned, so
that further investigation could be conducted and the
guilty person could be prosecuted. We, therefore,
think fit to give directions to that effect.

¶488

LEGALITY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.05.2013

¶489

62.Respondent no.2 has passed the impugned order
and directed to regularise allotment of plots though
they have been carved out from the open spaces and
amenity areas without following proper procedure and
that too by entertaining individual applications.
Respondent no.2 noticed that the plots were allotted
by inviting tenders in the year 2005. Even then,
respondent no.2 did not find anything wrong in
allotment of plots by entertaining individual
applications during the period from 2006 to April

¶490

2010. The impugned order does not at all contain any
justification for giving directions to regularize
allotment of the plots. In para 41 of the judgment in

¶491

the case of Real Team Systems Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the
role of respondent no.2 being in-charge of the

¶492

(78)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶493

Department of Industries, and the necessity of
disposal of the property of the MIDC by public

¶494

auction, has been clarified in the following terms :-

¶495

"A Minister in-charge of the department of
Industries, as is well settled, performs a public
duty. He acts as trustee of the public just as
the corporation acts in that capacity. Therefore,
a public property should have been disposed of by
public auction and which ensures complete
transparency. That avoids the charge of nepotism,
corruption and favouritism. Even when individual
applications have to be considered, there is a
policy of the corporation and which is enunciated
in its own circulars. There was no reason to
deviate from that policy. "

¶496

63.The impugned order does not contain the
reasons justifying regularization of the plots

¶497

allotted to the members of respondent no.6 despite the

¶498

fact that the said allotment was illegal and tainted
with corruption, nepotism and favouritism. The object
of the MIDC Act is to secure the orderly establishment

¶499

in industrial areas and industrial estates of
industries in the State of Maharashtra. The impugned
order runs contrary to the said object. In the
circumstances, the impugned order cannot be upheld

¶500

(79)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶501

being not legal, proper and correct.

¶502

64.In view of the facts and circumstances

¶503

discussed above, it will be necessary to direct the
Chief Executive Officer of the MIDC to classify the
plots into two groups. The first group would comprise

¶504

of the plots of which allotment and locations can be
regularised. Such plots only would be placed for
public auction. The second group would comprise of the
plots of which allotment as well as locations cannot

¶505

be regularised, as also the plots which have been
unauthorisedly sub-let, sold or transferred in any
manner. The Chief Executive Officer will have to be
directed to take necessary steps according to law to
terminate allotment of the said plots and resume
possession thereof. The allottees of such plots would
not be entitled to get any equitable relief including

¶506

that of refund of the premium paid by them. However,

¶507

the allottees of such plots would be entitled to
remove the superstructures, machineries and other
movables belonging to them from over such plots within
the given time, failing which they would stand vested

¶508

(80)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶509

in the Chief Executive Officer without paying any
compensation, allowance or refund of premium to the
allottees thereof. He would remove the said
superstructures, machineries and other movables at the
cost of the allottees concerned. Necessary directions
will have to be given to the Chief Executive Officer
to deal accordingly with the plots subject matter of
the reports of Gatne Committee and Internal Committee.

¶510

directions :-

¶511

(1)The impugned order dated 29.05.2013 passed by

¶512

respondent no.2 is quashed and set aside.

¶513

entertaining individual applications, subject- matter
of the reports of Gatne Committee and Internal
Committee is cancelled.

¶514

(3)(a)Respondent nos.4 and 5 shall place proposals
within three months from today before the Minor
Modification Committee in respect of the plots carved

¶515

(81)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶516

out from open spaces and amenity areas which,
according to them, are liable to be regularised
despite being carved out from open spaces and amenity
areas, by giving specific reasons justifying such
regularisation.

¶517

(b)If such proposals are received, the Minor
Modification Committee shall consider them on their
own merits and take appropriate decision thereon on
the question of their regularisation or otherwise,
within three months from the date of receipt of the
proposal concerned.

¶518

(c)If the Minor Modification Committee accepts

¶519

any proposal for regularisation of certain plots for
justifiable reasons, the Chief Executive Officer of

¶520

the MIDC shall put up such plots for allotment by
public auction within two months from the respective
dates of the decisions recorded by the Minor
Modification Committee in respect of regularisation
thereof.

¶521

(82)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶522

(d)Prior to publishing notice of public auction
in respect of the plots proposed to be auctioned, the
Chief Executive Officer shall get the superstructures,
machineries and other movables etc. standing thereon
evaluated through a Government Valuer and the value
thereof shall be specifically mentioned in the notice
of public auction besides the upset amount of premium
of the plots concerned.

¶523

(e)The original allottee of the plot so

¶524

regularised shall be allowed to participate in the
public auction and if he offers highest premium, he
shall be allowed to retain that plot along with the
superstructures, machineries and other movables
standing thereon, on payment of difference between the
highest premium offered by him on one hand, and the
amount of premium paid by him at the time of initial
allotment of the plot to him as well as the amount
paid by him in pursuance of the impugned order dated
29.05.2013 with interest accrued on those payments at
the rate of Rs.8/- percent per annum from the
respective dates of payments thereof till the date of

¶525

(83)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶526

public auction, on the other.

¶527

(f)In case the original allottee of the plot so
regularised does not offer highest premium in the
publicauction,suchplotalongwithits
superstructures, machineries and other movables
standing thereon shall be allotted to the highest
bidder and the value of superstructures, machineries
and other movables as determined pursuant to the
directions given in clause 3(d) above, shall be paid
to the original allottee. Moreover, the amount of
premium paid by him at the time of the initial
allotment of the plot as well as the amount paid by
him in pursuance of the impugned order dated
29.05.2013 shall be refunded to him with interest at
the rate of 8% per annum from the respective dates of
such payments till the date of refund thereof.

¶528

(g)If the plot, where production is going on, is
allotted to the highest bidder other than the original
allottee, it would stand transferred to the new
allottee on payment of the premium etc. alongwith the

¶529

(84)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶530

workers/officers serving in the industrial unit run
thereon and the new allottee shall continue their

¶531

services on the same terms and conditions as
applicable to them prior to such transfer. The
condition to that effect shall be specifically
mentioned in the notice of public auction and the
auction documents.

¶532

(h)If the Minor Modification Committee finds

¶533

that the change in the location of any particular open
space and amenity areas from where any plot has been
carved out and allotted for industrial, mercantile or
any other purpose, is not justifiable and permissible,
the Chief Executive Officer of the MIDC shall get
restored such open space and/or amenity area to its
original position as demarcated in the original lay-
out plan, within two months from the date of decision
of the Minor Modification Committee.

¶534

(4)(a)The Chief Executive Officer of the MIDC shall

¶535

take necessary steps according to law within three
months from today to terminate allotment and resume

¶536

(85)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶537

possession of the plots which have been unlawfully
sub-let or sold or transferred in any manner by the
original allottees to the third persons.

¶538

(b)The original allottees or their assignees
shall remove their superstructures, machineries or
movables from over such plots within two months from
the date of the order passed by the Chief Executive
Officer for resuming possession thereof, failing which

¶539

the same shall stand vested in the Chief Executive
Officer without paying compensation or allowances to
the original allottees or their assignees. The Chief
Executive Officer shall get such plots restored to
their original position as demarcated in the original
lay-out plan by removing the superstructures,
machineries and other movables etc. standing thereon,
at the costs of the allottees concerned and recover
the same from them as land revenue.

¶540

(c)If the Chief Executive Officer terminates

¶541

allotment and resumes possession of the plots in
pursuance of the directions given in clauses 4(a)

¶542

(86)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶543

above and if such plots are legally transferable, the
Chief Executive Officer shall allot them by public
auction.

¶544

(5)The Chief Executive Officer of the MIDC shall
take necessary steps within three months from today
vide Sections 44 and 46 of the Maharashtra Industrial

¶545

Development Act, 1961 in respect of the plots and
against the allottees thereof, who have carried out
illegal construction by encroaching upon the marginal
open spaces around the buildings.

¶546

(6)The area of 35.15 Hectares which has been

¶547

kept vacant in pursuance of the directions given in
paragraph 2 of the order dated 08.05.2014 passed by
this Court shall be kept vacant, until further orders.

¶548

(7)Respondent no.3 - the Managing Director of

¶549

the MIDC shall conduct necessary enquiry in respect of
missing files, fix the responsibility and initiate
departmental enquiry against the Officers found
responsible for missing of files, within three months
from today.

¶550

(87)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶551

(8)Respondent no.3 - the Managing Director of
the MIDC, shall take necessary steps to initiate
departmental enquiry within three months from today
against the erring Officers of the MIDC for
unauthorisedly and illegally carving out plots from
open spaces and amenity areas, allotting the plots by
entertaining individual applications, failing to take
action against the allottees for unlawfully sub-
letting or transferring the plots to third persons and
also for carrying out construction by encroaching upon
the marginal open spaces.

¶552

(9)Respondent no.3 shall get prepared the list of the
plots in respect of which the files are missing,
verify whether the said plots were legally
transferable from the area demarcated in the lay-out
plan and have been allotted as per the prescribed
procedure and submit a report to this Court within
three months from today, so that necessary orders in
respect of those plots could be passed.

¶553

(88)PIL No. 68 of 2013

¶554

(10)Shri.Waghmode, the Director of M/s.Siddhi
Forging Pvt. Ltd. (allottee of nine plots) would be
at liberty to lodge report to the Police Station
concerned in respect of the script of conversation

¶555

alleged to have taken place between petitioner no.1
and himself, along with the requisite certificate of
authenticity of that script as contemplated under
Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. If such
report is filed, the Police Station Officer concerned
shall conduct necessary investigation and take further
steps according to law.

¶556

(11)The interim order dated 08.05.2014, to the
extent it permitted the members of respondent no.6 to
develop their respective plots, stands vacated.

¶557

(12) The Chief Executive Officer of the MIDC shall
submit action taken reports quarterly, with effect
from 15thSeptember, 2016, before the Registrar
(Judicial) of this Court at Aurangabad, for perusal of
this Court, until further orders.

¶558

(89)PIL No. 68 of 2013
(13)With these directions, the P.I.L. stands

¶559

disposed of.

¶560

(SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)

¶561

After pronouncement of this judgment, the
learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.6 prays
for stay to the execution of this judgment.

¶562

 As seen from the directions given in the
judgment, the period of three months has been given
to the Chief Executive Officer of the MIDC to take
effective steps for termination of the allotments and
resume possession of the plots concerned. In our

¶563

view, this would extend sufficient time for

¶564

respondent no.6 to approach the Hon'ble the Supreme
Court for seeking necessary relief. In the

¶565

circumstances, prayer for stay to the execution of

¶566

this judgment made by the learned Counsel for
respondent no.6 is rejected.

¶567

(SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)

¶568

BGP/KBP

Somnath Gangadhar Karale and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Somnath Gangadhar Karale and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Sandeep Ramesh Bhandare Vs Election Commission of India and Anr.

Kaju Ramchandra Upadhyay Vs Shri. Devendra Fadanvis, Honble Chief Minister and Ors.

Vishnu Vitthal Karampuri Vs Solapur Municipal Corporation (Smc) and Ors.

Lopesh Shantilal Vora Vs Union of India and Ors.

Anil Shamrao Mulmule Vs State of Maharashtra, Throughits Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mumbai and 5

Suryakant S/O. Lakappa Gaikwad vs the Union of India and Anr.

Shri. Dayanand Kallappa Sonage Vs Shri. Tukaram Munde and Ors.

Mr. Shriprakash Neel Vs Election Commission of India and Ors.

Laxmam Mhasu Darade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sakhu Maruti Bite Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shankarsingh Ganeshsingh Pardeshi Vs Chairperson and Managing Director Central Bank of India and Ors.

Swami Durganand Shaikshanik Va Sanskrutik Sanstha, Jalgaon through Its President Nanabhau P Mahajan Vs Nandkumar and Another

Ram Hemla Chavan and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gulab Mehatab Shaikh and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others