Gujarat High Court
Hari Narayan Corporation Through ... vs State Of Gujarat Through Secretary on 8 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8497/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8497 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================
HARI NARAYAN CORPORATION THROUGH PARTNER CHANDRAKANT
SOLANKI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & ANR.
==========================================
Appearance:
MR HASIT DAVE(1321) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR NIKUNJ KANARA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR CHINMAY M GANDHI(3979) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 08/04/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under the provisions of the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation Act and Registration Scheme and Policy of the Gujarat Government and GIDC seeking following reliefs:-
(A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus and/or a Page 1 of 13 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 02:53:01 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8497/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined writ of certiorari or any other appropriate, writ order or direction quashing and setting aside the communication dated 18.02.2006 and the order dated 26.4.2010 issued by the respondent no.2 as being without authority of law and jurisdiction and immediately direct the respondent GIDC to allot the residential plot of 800 meters and above as applicable against the Industrial Plot of 5130 sq.meters @ applicable old rate to the petitioner as per the policy.
(B) Your Lordships be pleased to stay implementation, execution and operation of the order dated 26.4.2010 pending the admission and final hearing of the present petition.
(C) Ad-interim relief in terms of above prayer (b) may kindly be granted.
(D) To grant any other or further relief deem fit proper and incidental in the facts of the present case, may kindly be granted.
2. The facts of the present case are in nutshell as under:-
2.1 It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has challenged the inaction of respondent No.2 in denying to allot the residential plot based upon such Registration over the period of 15 years and more and being in its continuous production and usage. The respondent No.2 has sought to refuse to allot the residential plot against the industrial plot held by the petitioner at the rate at the time when the same was purchased in GSFC auction sale in the year 1995 and production was duly started by petitioner in the year 1996, even when, he duly fulfilled and possessed all the by the relevant legal criteria required for the same.
2.2 It is the case of the petitioner that the application of the Page 2 of 13 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 02:53:01 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8497/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined petitioner seeking such plot allotment has not been considered by respondent No.2 on the ground that the plot in question though was used by him as an owner the transfer formalities were recent and several other industries are equally granted similar benefits.
2.3 It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has repeatedly requested for allotment of the residential plot, which are allotted to all such industries which has been denied to the petitioner ground that the petitioner was not having ownership / title over the said manufacturing unit at the relevant time. However, in view of the order of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 2989 of 2009 it was done but then his application is refused on frivolous and grounds not germane and de hors their own policy.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.Nikunj Kanara, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Mr.Chinmay Gandhi, learned counsel for respondent No.2 - GIDC.
Perused the material placed on record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner - Shree Hari Narayan Corporation purchased the parcel of land in auction sale of the unit of M/s. Essen Fabrication and Engg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. District Gandhinagar, due to the default committed by the erstwhile company as the company has not repaid the loan obtained from the Gujarat State Financial Corporation and under default, the property was auctioned by the respondents and the same was purchased by the petitioner on 06.12.1995 for consideration of Rs.38,55,555/- as the petitioner was successful bidder. It is contended that the petitioner had taken the possession of the said plot of land and started business in the name and style of Hari Narayan Page 3 of 13 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 02:53:01 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8497/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined Corporation and after incurring the huge expenses, the petitioner has started doing business which is till date running and as per the policy framed by the respondent GIDC dated 22.09.2004 that those who are having industrial plots in the GIDC, are entitled to apply for residential plot available in the GIDC area and for allotment of the said residential plot, the respondent - GIDC has framed criteria which reads thus:-
"In the industrial estates established by the Corporation, with a view to ensuring that industries are provided with the necessary amenities, residential and other commercial facilities are developed in such estates as may be considered necessary. In the residential areas of the estate, allocation of land is made by the Corporation to the owners, partners or directors of industrial units and to the industrial workers of the industrial units, which definition includes the executives, administrators, managers, staff, etc. of the unit. In addition thereto, a separate policy has been implemented by the Corporation regarding allotment of residential plots to its employees, and for the purpose of making residential houses or flats available to the owners as well as employees of industrial units, a policy has been implemented for allotment of residential plots to co- operative housing societies formed by their members. Considering all factors such as the changing circumstances from time to time, availability of land, demand, etc., an agenda was placed before the 417th meeting of the Corporation held on 05/08/2004 for deliberation with regard to review the policy of allotment of residential land to the employees of industries. As per the decision taken by the Corporation, the policy of allotment of residential plots has been partially amended as under.
(a) Regarding the allotment of residential plots to the owner, partner or director of an industry:
(1) The director, partner or owner of such industrial units, to whom allotment of a residential plot has not been made under the previous scheme and which have been in production for the last four years, shall become entitled to obtain a residential plot.Page 4 of 13 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 02:53:01 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8497/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined (2) In case of an industrial unit having an industrial plot measuring less than 1000 sq. mtrs., one residential plot up to 150 sq. mtrs. shall be allotted to the owner or to any one partner or to any one director.
(3) In case of an industrial unit having an industrial plot measuring more than 1000 sq. mtrs., one residential plot up to 200 sq. mtrs. shall be allotted to the owner or to any one partner or to any one director.
(4) Transfer of an unutilized plot allotted for residential purpose shall not be permitted.
(5) If the plot is not utilized within three years, the same shall be required to be surrendered, and the allotment of the residential plot shall be made subject to such explicit condition.
(6) Consolidation of plots allotted on an individual basis for residential purpose shall not be permitted.
(b) Regarding the allotment of residential plots to the employees of industrial units, which includes executives, administrators, managers, and staff:
(1) Instead of allotting residential plots individually to the employees of industrial units, which definition includes executives, administrators, managers, and staff, residential plots admeasuring 500 to 1000 sq. mtrs. shall be planned in the development plan and allotted to the housing society of such employees for the purpose of constructing residential flats.
(2) Allotment of residential land to the housing society shall be made upon recovery of 100 percent of the land price.
(3) If the plot is not utilized within three years, the same shall be required to be surrendered, and the allotment of the residential plot shall be made subject to such explicit condition."
4.2 It is contended that the petitioner fall under Clause (a) of Sub Clause 3 as the petitioner is holding more than 1000 square meter industrial plot and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get the plot Page 5 of 13 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 02:53:01 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8497/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined of 200 square meter for residential purpose. The petitioner made an application before respondent GIDC for allotment of residential plot and even for the transfer of the said plot in the name of the petitioner, the respondent - authority has not made any attention and, therefore, the petitioner moved before this Court by way of filing Special Civil Application No. 9158 of 2006. It is contended that after considering the submissions and hearing the parties, the Court was pleased to partly allowed the petition and, thereafter, one another petition being Special Civil Application No. 2989 of 2009 came to be filed by the petitioner and ultimately after intervention by this Court, the registration was made in favour of the petitioner and transfer was also made effected by the respondent - GIDC. The petitioner applied for residential plot in the GIDC Area and made online application being No.000133 which came to be turned down by the respondent - Corporation on 26.04.2010 on the ground that though the petitioner has furnished all the relevant documentary evidence after 12.03.2010 in respect of his application and on perusal of the said documents, the respondent - GIDC has refused the request of the petitioner on the ground that since the transfer of plot No.B/21 was less than four years only and therefore as per the scheme, the petitioner has not been entitled for residential plot. Therefore, the petitioner applied to the respondent - GIDC to furnish the details in respect of his online application that what was the scheme of the Government i.e. particularly framed by the GIDC with regard to the residential plot in the area and respondent has supplied the copy of the document which is referred in the aforesaid paragraph. Looking to the scheme, the eligible criteria is that before making an application, industrial unit continuously run by the industry for four years are only eligible for seeking allotment of the residential plot. Therefore, the petitioner has not entitled to get the allotment and, therefore, the petitioner has Page 6 of 13 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 02:53:01 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8497/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined challenged the order / communication on the ground that the petitioner has purchased the sub plot in public auction in 1995 and since then the respondent GIDC has not completed the formality and not executed a deed in favour of the petitioner and in earlier writ petition, on account of the intervention of this Court, the subject land was transferred in favour of the petitioner. It is contended that in 2009, prior thereto, the industrial unit was already commenced and it was continuously run by the petitioner for more than four years for which the petitioner has produced relevant documents, however, on the ground that the petitioner is not unit of GIDC after writ jurisdiction and therefore his application was rejected, which is unjust, illegal and arbitrary. It is contended that the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned communication / order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 - GIDC has opposed the petition and has referred and relied upon the contents of the affidavit- in-reply. The relevant contents of the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2 reads as under:-
"I further say and submit that without going into the other contents of the petition, it is not in dispute that the present petitioner had filed the previous SCA No.2989/2009 in which order was passed and the petitioner was aggrieved in the previous petition by the order or communication dated 21.02.2009 of GIDC with regard to the calculations mentioned in the said communication. That in the said letter also there is a dispute with regard to the amount of transfer fee, which is fixed at Rs.6,14,760/- and that has been demanded by the said letter dated 21.02.2009 and there is no other dispute raised at the relevant point of time on behalf of the petitioner. However, the contention regarding non charging of the transfer fee has been rejected. The petitioner, at that time, raised a second dispute about the allotment of the residential plot and that Page 7 of 13 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 02:53:01 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8497/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined time the Hon'ble Court had directed the petitioner to approach the GIDC for issuance of the form for residential plot and the same would be considered. Now, having raised the dispute, the second petition is not maintainable. It. is further submitted that the party has already paid the transfer fees and therefore, the plot is transferred in the name of the party the petitioner but the grievance about the allotment of the residential plot is beyond the policy and the petitioner is not entitled to the same.
It is further submitted that the plot in question is originally allotted to Essem Fabrication and Engineering Company Private Gandhinagar. However, the said property was auctioned by the GSFC and the petitioner had purchased the same. That as per the admission of the petitioner, the plot in question after the auction was transferred by the GIDC on 05.04.2010. Therefore, the name of the petitioner on the record of the case of the GIDC is only from 05.04.2010. It is submitted that the grievance voiced in this petition is with regard to the allotment of the plot. However, the policy of the GIDC is also produced on the record of the case by the petitioner and as per the policy, the industries concerned must have the production in the industrial plot for a continuous period of four years and only then, the Director, Partner or the industries is entitled for residential plot. The policy further says that the residential plot is available to the tune of 150 sq.mtrs. if the industrial plot is less than 1000 sq.mtrs. and if the industrial plot is more than 1000 sq.mtrs. then in that case, maximum 200 sq.mtrs. of land can be allotted for residential plot. In the present case, as aforesaid, the petitioner came on the record only on 05.04.2010 and therefore, the petitioner is not a person carrying on the industrial activities continuously for four years and therefore, naturally the petitioner is not entitled to the residential plot as per the policy and hence, the present petition is liable to be dismissed in limine."
5.1 It is contended on behalf of respondent No.2 that the petition being meritless deserves to be dismissed.
6. The petitioner has also filed affidavit-in-rejoinder reiterating the Page 8 of 13 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 02:53:01 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8497/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined contention that earlier Special Civil Application No. 2989 of 2009 was filed for an altogether different purpose of what transfer fees and charges to be levied upon persons like the petitioner as he has purchased the property in auction held by the GIDC since 1995 and from 1995, the petitioner commenced production and till the final disposal of the petition in 2009, the industry was continuously run by the petitioner and, therefore, the reasons stated by the GIDC is absolutely illegal and unjust. It is also to be considered that since the petitioner has purchased the plot from auction proceeding in 1995 and the policy prevailing at the relevant time in 1995, the petitioner is entitled to get residential plot and the application of the petitioner cannot be rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not completed four years of registration.
7. This Court has considered the facts and circumstances of the case and contentions of the petition, affidavit-in-reply and affidavit-in- rejoinder and also considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties.
8. The case of the petitioner is that at the time of rejecting his request in 2010, the petitioner had already spent for more than 15 years to commence the business and started production in the subject plot of land and, therefore, the reason given by the GIDC is completely illegal, erroneous and unjust. When the Court directed respondent - GIDC to furnish detail that how many plots were vacant and how many allotted at that time in compliance of the order passed by the Court, respondent - GIDC has filed affidavit and submitted email details wherein it has been stated that more than 180 applications for allotment are pending since 2008-2009 to 2014-2015 and 93 plots are available in the housing zone and some of the plots Page 9 of 13 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 02:53:01 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8497/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined are reserved for the GIDC and some are reserved for cooperative society and remaining can be allotted to the allottee of the industrial plots. It is also stated in the said email letter that the application of the petitioner was rejected once due to reasons mentioned. However, the allotment of the housing plots is under process at the GIDC's Head Office level meaning thereby that as and when the petitioner's turn came he was informed that he was not entitled. Therefore, the petitioner has filed additional affidavit pointing out that after purchase of the plot in auction proceedings in 1995, he immediately started production from 1997 and he had also obtained necessary permission from the different authorities. Even for executing a sale deed and to complete formalities, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing writ petition and after intervention of the Court, process of registration of deed and execution of the deed was completed and ultimately after intervention of the Court, the sub plot of land was transferred in favour of the petitioner only in 2010 and he has produced all relevant documentary evidence which shows that the petitioner has commenced production after obtaining necessary permission and registration. The petitioner has get IDM number and he has furnished income tax returns from 2005 onward and hence, the petitioner urged that the impugned action of the respondent is required to be quashed and set aside.
9. Having considered the facts of the case and the averments made in the petition and considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the impugned record, it appears that on each occasion, the petitioner has rushed to this Court for relevant documents and permission which was not granted by the respondent
- GIDC though the petitioner is entitled for. It is pertinent to note herein that though the petitioner purchased the property in auction Page 10 of 13 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 02:53:01 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8497/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined held by respondent Bank and for registration of transfer of the said plot and execution of sale deed, the petitioner has to approach before this Court and upon intervention of the Court, such formalities have been completed by the respondents. Looking to the conduct on the part of the respondents, prima facie, it appears that respondent No.2 is acting in arbitrary manner and in deciding the application of the petitioner, respondent No.2 has not applied mind and straightway rejected the application. It appears that as per the record available with respondent No.2, since 1995 the petitioner has purchased the subject plot of land and started manufacturing way back in 1992, prior to the date of rejection. However, the respondent has rejected request of the petitioner on the ground that as per the policy, the petitioner has not completed four years for manufacturing activity after registration and after the Court passed the order. Though the formalities have to complete immediately after sale deed in 1995, instead of that the petitioner has time and again approached the respondent requesting to transfer the unit in the name of the petitioner and ultimately, since the respondents have not done, the petitioner has filed writ petition before this Court which came to be allowed and only after intervention of this Court, such formalities were completed and therefore the reason stated in the order of rejection of the application by respondent No.2 is completely erroneous and illegal and without application of mind and the same is completely arbitrary in nature. This Court is of the view that the impugned order passed by the respondent is illegal and unjust and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed.
10. So far as the deficit stamp duty asked by the Deputy Collector is concerned, the petitioner approached this Court by way of Special Page 11 of 13 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 02:53:01 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8497/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined Civil Application No. 9158 of 2006 which came to be allowed by the Court. Thereafter, though the deed was executed on 31.08.1995, the sale deed was executed on 31.07.2008 after the order passed by this Court. The petitioner was not permitted to apply for residential plot on the ground that the petitioner has not completed four years to run the business on subject plot of land. Therefore, the petitioner approached respondent No.2 and gave an application contending that the petitioner has purchased the parcel of land in public auction in 1995 and immediately the petitioner has started manufacturing process in the said plot of land and due to the deficit stamp duty, the registration was not undertaken and after approaching this Court and after getting the order from this Court, the registration was made and for the purpose of transfer fee and other levy of the taxes, the petitioner has again approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 17621 of 2007 along with Special Civil Application No. 17756 of 2007 with regard to levy of taxes and transfer fee whereby this Court has, while disposing of the petition, directed the respondents to consider the representation and, thereafter, third petition being Special Civil Application No. 2989 of 2009 came to be filed with regard to levy of tax, which was decided by this Court. Despite this, the respondent authority has rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that as per the policy, the petitioner has not completed four years and, therefore, the reasons assigned by the respondent authority in rejecting the application / representation does not inspire any confidence.
11. Looking to the facts of the case, it appears that from 1997, the petitioner, on every occasion, has approached this Court and only after intervention of this Court, the respondents have considered the Page 12 of 13 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 02:53:01 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8497/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined case of the petitioner. It reveals from the material that the respondents are acting in highhanded and arbitrary manner and in rejecting the application, the three lines order has been passed by the respondent - authority that the petitioner has not completed four years to run the business from the date of registration and therefore the application of the petitioner cannot be considered and the same is filed. Meaning thereby that the respondent authority has not considered earlier period of 1997 onward, which fact is completely unjustifiable, illegal and arbitrary.
12. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed. The impugned communication dated 18.02.2006 and the order dated 26.4.2010 issued by the respondent no.2 are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law, after considering the facts and documents which are part of the petition and produced before the respondents as expeditious as possible preferably within a period of six months. Rule is made absolute.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) V.R. PANCHAL Page 13 of 13 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 02:53:01 IST 2026