IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
B. P. COLABAWALLA, SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ
Siddhilaxmi Enclave Pvt. Ltd - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary & Ors - Respondent
WP/10246/2024
Decided On : 03-01-2025
(A) Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 - Section 18 - Writ of mandamus - Petitioners sought direction to MIDC for executing lease agreements and handing over possession of allotted land for hotel development - MIDC's inaction deemed arbitrary and unlawful - Court directed MIDC to execute agreements and hand over possession within six weeks. (Paras 7, 14, 24, 27)
(B) Judicial Review - Directions issued by the State Government under Section 18 are subject to judicial review for manifest arbitrariness and absence of reason. (Paras 26, 27)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners were allotted land by MIDC for hotel development but faced delays in execution of lease agreements and possession despite full payment. (Paras 8, 10)
Findings of Court:
MIDC's failure to act on allotments was arbitrary and lacked legal basis, necessitating court intervention. (Paras 14, 24)
Issues: Whether MIDC's inaction constituted a failure to perform statutory obligations and the validity of the State Government's directions. (Paras 12, 20)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the MIDC must execute lease agreements as per statutory obligations, and the State Government's directions must be lawful and reasonable. (Paras 20, 24)
Result: Writ Petitions allowed; MIDC directed to execute agreements and hand over possession.
PC.
1. The above Application has been filed for the speaking to the minutes of the order dated December 20, 2024. The correction sought is in the appearance column. In the judgment/order in Writ Petition No.10246 of 2024, the following appearance is shown for the Petitioner:-
“Ms. Siddhi Sawant, i/b Nikhil Waje, for Petitioner in WP/10246/2024.” Instead, it should be reflected as under:
“Karl Tamboly i/b Nikhil Waje for Petitioner in WP/10246/2024”.
2. The same is accordingly ordered.
3. No other correction is sought. The correction shall be carried out in the original order as well as in the copy uploaded on the server.
4. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.
JUDGMENT :
(Per, Somasekhar Sundaresan, J.)
5. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Respondents in each of the aforesaid Writ Petitions, waive service. With the consent of the parties, both the Writ Petitions are taken up jointly for final hearing and disposal.
6. These Petitions essentially seek a writ of mandamus to issue a direction to the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (“MIDC”) to execute the requisite agreement to lease in respect of the parcels of land allotted to the Petitioners, and to hand over possession of the land for their development towards the purposes for which they were allotted to the Petitioners.
7. For the reasons set out in this judgement, we allow the Petitions and direct the MIDC to execute the agreements to lease to enable further processing of the projects, and to hand over possession ofthe lands so that they can be developed towards the purposes for which they were allotted to the Petitioners.
Writ Petition 15309 of 2023:
8. In Writ Petition 15309 of 2023 (“WP 15309”), by an allotment order dated October 1, 2021, followed by corrigendum dated April 4, 2022, the MIDC had allotted land to the Petitioner for developing a hotel at the Trans Thane Creek (TTC) Industrial Area, Mahape (“TTC Industrial Area”). Despite the allotment having been made and full payment having been received, the MIDC has simply refrained from executing the requisite agreements and actually granting possession of the land to the Petitioner. Such inaction has been assailed in this Petition as an arbitrary failure on the part of MIDC to perform a statutory obligation, and to issue a direction to the MIDC to execute the agreements to lease.
9. On June 28, 2021, July 2, 2021, July 22, 2021, and August 6, 2021 offer letters were issued by the MIDC to the Petitioner allotting plot No. PAP-A-582, PAP-A-583, PAP-A-584 and PAP-A-585 in TTC Industrial Area for payment of premium of Rs.33,10,400/-. The payment of premium was effected by the Petitioner. Since the Petitionermade a request for division of the land offered by MIDC, the MIDC issued a corrigendum and identified the divided plots with their area by a Corrigendum dated April 4, 2022. Despite the allotment being made and payments being received, the MIDC inexplicably refrained from actually giving possession of the land and from executing the agreement to lease to enable the Petitioner to put the land to use. It is common ground that all compliances from the Petitioner, including payment of the requisite amounts in respect of the allotted land has been made, and yet the project of the Petitioner has been stalled without any reason.
Writ Petition No. 10246 of 2024:
10. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 10246 of 2024 (“WP 10246”) is also desirous of setting up a hotel in the TTC Industrial Area. In this case, the MIDC allotted two plots of land admeasuring 100 square metres each by way of letters dated November 8, 2019 and December 27, 2019 and called for payment of earnest money deposit, which was paid. The Petitioner requested MIDC to amalgamate the plot so allotted, namely, Plot No. PAP-A-571 and PAP-A-572 by an application dated June 18, 2021, and sought allotment of t
The court affirmed that statutory bodies must fulfill their obligations and that government directions must be lawful and reasonable, subject to judicial review.
The decision to allot a specific plot for installation of an oxygen manufacturing plant depended on the Land Committee as per the MIDC regulations, and the MIDC's disregard of its own regulations and....
The State Government's communication was deemed a binding directive under Section 154 of the MRTP Act, mandating compliance by CIDCO.
The government must act in a fair and just manner in the distribution of wealth, and any arbitrary distribution would violate the law of the land.
Non-compliance with contractual obligations and lack of activities on the allotted plots justified the termination of the Agreements by MIDC.
The court affirmed the constitutional validity of the MIDC's priority allotment policy, emphasizing that online applications and fair process must apply uniformly, without arbitrary distinctions amon....
The court established that acceptance of delayed payments by the State constituted a deemed extension of time for contract performance, reinforcing the obligation to execute lease deeds.
The court established that the State can allot Gairan land for public purposes under the PMAY, overriding restrictions in the MLRC due to the authority granted by the MRTP Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.