Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has refused to interfere with land allotments made by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC), ruling that the absence of a public advertisement or wide publicity is not enough to invalidate such allotments, provided the action is bona fide and for a public purpose.
A bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Bhrastachar Nirmoolan Sangathana, which alleged that MIDC plots were allotted to individuals closely connected to legislators and ministers without following due process and at concessional rates.
Petitioners argued public largesse cannot be distributed without open opportunity
The petitioners argued that “public largesse cannot be distributed without grant of opportunity to all eligible persons” and that at the very least MIDC should have issued a public notice inviting applications. They claimed that the allotments were made by entertaining private requests from politicians and their associates, depriving genuinely needy institutions
MIDC countered that the allotments were made strictly as per the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Disposal of Land Regulations, 1975, which permit allotment through either public auction or direct applications. Counsel pointed out that under these regulations, five percent of an industrial area is compulsorily reserved for amenities such as schools and colleges. The impugned allotments are accordingly made for the establishment of common amenities, within the prescribed 5% reserved quota, MIDC said. It also added that a 2004 board resolution fixed concessional rates at 50% of the industrial rate for educational institutions.
MIDC defended allotments citing 1975 Regulations and 5% reservation for amenities
The court observed that the petitioners had not challenged either the Land Disposal Regulations or the board resolutions. It also noted that the plots were ultimately being used for educational purposes. “There is thus no dispute that the concerned entities have ultimately set up educational institutions on the allotted plots… it would be too late in the day now to take back the lands from the said educational institutions only because MIDC did not implement auction process,” the bench remarked.
Court noted plots used for educational purposes, dismisses challenge
Disposing of the PIL, the court said: “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 bench clarified that if MIDC notices any unauthorized change in the use of the land, it must initiate action against the allottees.
