High Court
Facts
1 936.WP-2724-2025.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD936 WRIT PETITION NO. 2724 OF 2025MS NIKI AGRO PRODUCTS PVT LTD THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED PERSON VIMAL MANKICHAN CHORDIYAVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND TOHERS...Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. V.D.Sapkal Senior Counsel I/by. Mr. Patil Mangesh G.AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.P. SonpawaleAdvocate for Respondent No.5 : Mr. S.S.Deve… CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ. DATE : 09.09.2025PER COURT :.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, as also learned AGPfor the contesting Respondent Nos.2 to 5 i.e. the officers and theauthorities of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation( in short ‘M.I.D.C.’).2.The petitioner is aggrieved by a communication dated27.01.2025 issued by the Respondent/M.I.D.C, rejecting applicationfiled by the petitioner for permission to sell and transfer the plot ofland allotted to the petitioner. The ostensible ground on which thepermission was rejected, was a specific condition incorporated in theallotment order dated 26.07.2021, to the effect that the plot shouldnot be transferred up to five years. 2 936.WP-2724-2025.doc 3.Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contendedthat such a condition incorporated in the allotment order, does notfind mention in any of the circulars issued by the M.I.D.C itselfconcerning the guidelines for allotment of such plots of land.Therefore, Respondent/ M.I.D.C could not have insisted on imposingsuch a condition in the allotment order dated 26.07.2021, wherebythe subject plot was allotted to the petitioner. It was submitted thatthe petitioner has been consistently pursuing the matter forrelaxation of said special condition from the year 2021 on-wards andlast such application was made on 21.03.2024.4.By referring to the reply-affidavit placed on record, on behalfof M.I.D.C, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner, that theRespondent / M.I.D.C has taken a bold stand in paragraph No.10 ofthe reply affidavit, that such policy of insisting upon theaforementioned special condition was being applied uniformly to allthe parties who have been allotted plots in terms of such a decisiondated 02.02.2021, taken by the Land Allotment Committee (L.A.C.)of the Respondent/MIDC.5.In response thereto, alongwith rejoinder affidavit, thepetitioner has placed on record a series of orders which show thatwhile such a special condition was indeed incorporated in the case ofother allottees but upon applications filed on their behalf forrelaxation of the said special condition, respondent/M.I.D.C has
Legal Reasoning
5 936.WP-2724-2025.doc specific stand to the effect that the aforesaid policy incorporating thespecial condition was applied uniformly to all allottees and that thesource of power for insisting upon such a special condition, wasidentified in Section 14 of the M.I.D.C Act, 1961.9.But, the aforesaid bold stand taken on behalf of theRespondent/ M.I.D.C in paragraph No.10 of reply-affidavit is falsifiedby the documents placed on record on behalf of the petitioneralongwith the rejoinder affidavit. The said documents placed onrecord show a series of orders passed by the Respondent/ M.I.D.C,wherein such a condition was not incorporated as also a series oforders wherein, though such a special condition was incorporated,within the said period of five years, the Respondent/ M.I.D.C grantedrelaxation to such allottees, upon their submitting applications.10.By way of illustration, we find that by allotment order dated30.07.2021, Respondent/ M.I.D.C allotted a plot to a particular party,incorporating the aforementioned special condition to the effect thatthe plot should not be transferred up to five years. But, within lessthan one year, i.e on 29.07.2022, Respondent/ M.I.D.C grantedrelaxation of the said condition, by consenting to transfer of the verysame plot allotted to said party. The further documents on recordshow that such relaxation was granted to such allottees whereby theycould transfer their plots within a period of five years, despiteincorporation of the said special condition in their allotment ordersalso.
Arguments
3 936.WP-2724-2025.doc promptly granted such relaxation, thereby showing discriminatorytreatment meted out to the petitioner and the fallacious stand takenon behalf of the Respondent/M.I.D.C in paragraph No.10 of replyaffidavit filed in the present petition. It was further brought to thenotice of this Court in terms of another special conditionincorporated in the allotment order, the petitioner had indeedcompleted construction on the plot and its establishment had goneinto production, which is evident from a communication issued byone of the officers of Respondent/ M.I.D.C on 23.08.2024. It wassubmitted that since the petitioner has excess land, it intended todispose of part of the same, which ought to have been permitted inthe light of the manner in which the Respondent/ M.I.D.C hadtreated similarly situated parties to sell and transfer plots of land. Onthis basis, it was submitted that the petition be allowed.6.On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for thecontesting Respondent/ M.I.D.C submitted that the incorporation ofthe said special condition was well within the powers vested in theM.I.D.C and its L.A.C. It was submitted that Section 14 of theM.I.D.C Act, 1961, empowers the M.I.D.C, to regulate allotment ofplots in industrial areas and it is with the intention of preventingspeculative investments being made by parties like the petitioner,that the aforesaid special condition of not permitting transfer of plotswithin five years of allotment, was adopted. It was submitted thatthe object with which the said special condition was incorporated,would stand frustrated, if this Court allows the present petition. 4 936.WP-2724-2025.doc In respect of the documents placed on record alongwith rejoinderaffidavit, learned counsel appearing for the M.I.D.C could not disputethe said documents.7.Having considered the rival submissions, this Court is of theopinion that the petitioner has been able to make out a case forgranting relief in the present petition. The record indeed shows thatthe circulars issued by the Respondent/ M.I.D.C itself are referred toparagraph No.7 of reply-affidavit pertaining to guidelines ofallotment of such industrial plots, which does not show incorporationof such a special condition, that is the subject matter of controversyin the present writ petition. Yet, it is contended on behalf ofRespondent/ M.I.D.C that its L.A.C, can certainly impose such aspecial condition, superseding its own circulars in the light oftendency of parties to invest in industrial plots, only with a view tosell them when the land prices increase, with the passage of time.The whole purpose of allotment of such industrial plots, is to ensurethat industries are encouraged and industrial growth ultimately leadsto generating employment.8.While the object and intention, sought to be demonstrated onbehalf of the M.I.D.C can not be found fault with, but if such a policywas consciously adopted by the L.A.C of M.I.D.C, as per its decisiondated 02.02.2021, it ought to have been implemented uniformly withregard to all the allottees of such industrial plots. In fact, inparagraph No.10 of the reply-affidavit, the M.I.D.C has taken a
Decision
6 936.WP-2724-2025.doc 11.These documents clearly show that the Respondent/ M.I.D.Chas not lived up to its stand taken in paragraph No.10 of reply-affidavit and that the said policy of incorporating the said specialcondition, has not been applied uniformly to similarly / identicallysituated allottees, as the petitioner.12.The petitioner has been able to make out a case, to claim thatit has been discriminated against and treated differently by theRespondent/M.I.D.C. The aforesaid conduct of the Respondent/M.I.D.C makes out a case of arbitrariness and as arbitrariness isantithesis of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, we are inclined tohold in favour of the petitioner.13.In view of the above, the impugned communication dated27.01.2025, issued by the Respondent/ M.I.D.C is quashed and set-aside and it is directed that the petitioner shall be granted relaxationof special condition No.4, incorporated in the allotment order dated26.07.2021.14.The Writ Petition stands allowed in above terms.15.Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) ( MANISH PITALE, J.)vsj..