The central legal point established in the judgment is that the allotment of property must comply with the terms and conditions laid down in the relevant circular, and lack of transparency and fairness in the allotment process can render the allotment illegal.

JUDGMENT

Bharati Dangre, J. - The Suit property is plot no.33 admesuring 100 sq.m in the industrial area at mauje, ambad, Nashik. The above property being owned by Kisan Dada Datir, came to be acquired by the Government in the year 1975. Kisan Dada Datir had two sons, the elder being Baburao, and younger one being Ramdas, who died on 25/10//2011.

2 On the acquisition of the suit land, the MIDC took a policy decision to allot plots to the project affected persons, at the prevalent rate and it issued a circular on 30/6/1993 and laid down the terms and conditions before allotting an alternative plot to the Karta of the family, the wife, son and unmarried daughter. Only one member of the family was entitled for allotment of the industrial plot with condition that, before the allotment, the person should procure a 'No objection' from other legal heirs/members of the family.

The elder son Babaurao moved an application on 13/12/1996 to MIDC for allotment of a plot, but no action was taken. again, on 20/5/2008, a similar application was moved but it was turned down on the ground of non-availability of the plot.

Instead, a plot came to be allotted in favour of Ramdas Kisan Datir, the younger brother of Baburao, on 16/9/2008. Upon such allotment, Baburao raised a grievance that while allotting the plot, 'No objection certificate' from him, being a legal heir of Kisan Dada Datir was not obtained and hence, the allotment is in gross violation of the circular of the MIDC, formulating a policy for allotment of alternative plot.

This constrained Baburao Kisan Datir to institute a Regular Civil Suit (RCS) No.265 of 2015 before the 4th Joint Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Nashik, seeking a declaration, possession and partition with respect to the suit property.

3 In the said suit, the MIDC was impleaded as defendant no.1, whereas the legal heir of Ramdas - Smt. Mandabai Datir (wife) and his two sons and one daughter came to be impleaded as defendant nos.2 to 5.

Upon the suit being filed, the defendant no.1 MIDC filed its reply (Exh.14), justifying the allotment to the defendant nos.2 to 5, and pleaded that after following due procedure of law, the allotment was made. a common written statement was filed by defendant nos.2 to 5 where they denied existence of any terms and conditions to the effect of obtaining no objection of other family members. It was pleaded, that the suit property was allotted to the husband of Mandabai by following due procedure of law and on his death, the defendants moved an application for obtaining legal heir certificate and they were successful, in getting one, without any objection being raised before the competent court. On the strength of the certificate, the defendants mutated their name against the suit property and the claim, as raised in the plaint, was denied by submitting that they had no right to claim any share in the suit property.

The defendant nos.2 to 5, though admitted that, the ancestral property was acquired by MIDC and on account of plot no. SS-15 came to be allotted on 9/8/1991 which was admeasuring 16 sq m., but since the plot was insufficient, her husband moved an application for larger area and paid the additional amount and accordingly, Plot no.SS-79 came to be allotted in his favour in the year 1998. Even this plot was found to be inadequate and was given back to MIDC and finally, plot bearing 33 admesuring 100 sq.m, was allotted on 16/9/2008 which is the subject matter of the suit.

Upon the allotment being effected, a lease agreement was signed, along with the MIDC on 4/3/2001 and even the possession of the suit property was handed over and permission was obtained to raise a structure. On the structure being completed, completion/occupation certificate was also granted in their favour on 3/5/2012 and it was therefore, pleaded that the plaintiff had knowledge of all these facts, but did not raise any issue about the allotment, at the relevant point of time and hence, the suit was liable to be dismissed.

4 I