V.C. Daga, J.

The first and second petitioners - M/s. Popcorn Entertainment in W.P.No.9467/2008 (“M/s. Popcorn” for short) and M/s. Platinum Entertainment in W.P.No.9468/2008 (“M/s. Platinum” for short) were allotted plot of lands by respondent No.1 - The City and Industrial Development Corporation (“CIDCO for short) for erecting entertainment complex in Navi Mumbai. Whereas third petitioner - M/s. Platinum Square Trust in W.P.No. 3423/2006 (“Platinum Square” for short) was allotted plot of land for establishment of country club. The said allotments were cancelled by CIDCO. The petitioners have challenged the said orders of cancellation through these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. The facts giving rise to these petitions are almost similar. The questions of law raised are identical. Rival submissions made are common to all petitions. Common written submissions are circulated by the parties. However, the petitions filed by M/s.Popcorn and M/s.Platinum Entertainment are the subject matter of remand order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, whereas third petition, filed by M/s.Platinum Square is coming up for consideration before this Court for the first time along with other two remanded petitions since the facts and issues involved are common. It has become necessary to state the facts separately in each petition for the sake of clarity and to demonstrate common thread running between them requiring identical judicial approach. But, before we do so, we may point out the facts common to all in relation to the source of power of allotment of land by CIDCO and reasons for cancellation of allotments made in favour of the petitioners.

Facts Common to All:

3. The respondent No.1 - CIDCO has been nominated as new town planning authority for the new town of New Bombay. The respondent No.2 is the Managing Director of respondent No.1. Respondent No.3 is the State of Maharashtra, who is having ultimate authority and power to control and regulate the activities of planning and development under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (“MRTP Act” for short)

4. In exercise of powers conferred by sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of section 159 of the MRTP Act, the CIDCO being new town development authority for the area comprised in the site of New Bombay under sub-section (3A) of section 113 of the said Act, has with the previous approval of the State Government published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette Part IV0C on 26th July, 1979 the New Bombay Disposal of Lands Regulations, 1975 (“the Regulations” for short).

5. The aforesaid regulations, inter alia, provide for the demarcation of plots vested in the Government by CIDCO into disposable plots having regard to their size and use. The said regulations also make provision for conditions of lease, mode of disposal and for grant of land for religious, educational, charitable and public purposes. For the present purpose, regulation 4 of Chapter IV which provides for mode of disposal is material. We may quote the same.

“4. Manner of disposal of land: The Corporation may dispose of plots of land by public auction or tender or by considering individual applications as the Corporation may determine from time to time.

6. Suffice it to say that in exercise of the above powers the plot of lands were allotted to the petitioners by CIDCO and after receipt of full consideration, CIDCO executed agreements of lease in favour of two petitioners, viz. M/s.Popcorn and M/s. Platinum. Though the entire consideration was paid by the third petitioner- M/s. Platinum Square to CIDCO, the possession of the plot was to be handed over to it only after its registration as society and/or charitable trust as the case may be.

7. The State Government subsequent to the confirmed allotments appointed the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra Dr. D.K.Shankaran to go into the question of validity of the allotments of plots during the tenure of t