Bombay HC Declines To Interfere In Allotment Of Plots By MIDC Over Inadequate Publicity, Says It Need Not Step In If Allotment Was Bona Fide
The Bombay High Court has held that courts need not interfere in allotments of land made by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) merely because no public advertisement was issued or because the publicity was inadequate, so long as the action of the State is bona fide and in furtherance of a public purpose.A Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep...
The Bombay High Court has held that courts need not interfere in allotments of land made by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) merely because no public advertisement was issued or because the publicity was inadequate, so long as the action of the State is bona fide and in furtherance of a public purpose.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne was hearing a Public Interest Litigation filed by Bhrastachar Nirmoolan Sangathana challenging the allotment of plots. The petitioners alleged that the allotments were made to persons closely connected with legislators and ministers without following due process and that the lands were granted at concessional rates in a manner contrary to the provisions of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Act, 1961.
The Court noted that under the Land Disposal Regulations, it is lawful for MIDC to make allotment of plots in a given case by entertaining direct applications, and it is not necessary that in every case, the allotment must be done by implementing a tender process.
The Court observed that the petitioners did not challenge the Land Disposal Regulations, which empower MIDC to make allotments by entertaining direct applications.
“… if the State action is bona fide and reasonable, Courts need not interfere in allotments only on the ground that no advertisement was issued or enough publicity was not made,” the Court observed.
The Court conceded that the State and its instrumentalities cannot distribute public largesse to individuals of its choice, and that, in ordinary circumstances, allotment of public land cannot be made by entertaining private applications and the State and its instrumentalities are required to implement an auction process. However, it emphasised that there is no challenge to MIDC's Land Disposal Regulations, and a leeway is given to MIDC to allot land in a given case without undertaking the auction process, with the aim of attracting industries in a particular area.
“Once the power of MIDC to make allotments by entertaining direct applications is not questioned, the end result in making allotments to various educational institutions can also not be challenged, unless the allotment is demonstrably arbitrary,” the Court observed.
The Court further remarked that there is no dispute that the concerned entities have ultimately set up educational institutions on the allotted plots. Further, there is no challenge to the board resolution by which the decision was taken to apply a concessional rate of 50% of the industrial area for allotting lands to educational institutions. The Bench stressed that it is too late to take back the lands from the said educational institutions, only because MIDC did not implement the auction process.
Hence, the Court refused to grant any relief in favour of the petitioners on the grounds that the petitioners did not challenge the Land Disposal Regulations, Board Resolutions fixed concessional rates, and the plots are being used for the purpose for which they were allotted.
Case Title: Bhrastachar Nirmoolan Sangathana v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [PIL No. 155 of 2006, Bombay High Court]