Bombay High Court
Shri. Rajesh Ram Kandage vs The Regional Officer, Mah. Industrial ... on 4 May, 2026
Author: Bharati Dangre
Bench: Bharati Dangre
NISHA
2026:BHC-AS:22323-DB
Digitally signed by
NISHA SANDEEP
SANDEEP CHITNIS
Date: 2026.05.11
CHITNIS 14:05:28 +0530 wp.4068.2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4068 OF 2022
Rajesh Ram Kandage
Age-47 years, Occ.-Business
Proprietor of M/s Chakan Precision
Office at-At Post Chakan, Tal-Khed
District Pune. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The Regional Officer,
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation,
Jog Center, Pune Mumbai Road,
Vakadevadi, Pune - 411 003.
2. Chief Executive Officer
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, "Udyog Sarathi",
Marol Indl. Area, Mahakali Caves Road,
Andheri (East) Mumbai - 400 093.
3. Joint Chief Executive Officer
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, "Udyog Sarathi",
Marol Indl. Area, Mahakali Caves Road,
Andheri (East) Mumbai - 400 093.
4. The State of Maharashtra
Through Government Pleader ...Respondents
Mr. Vachan Bodke i/b V and M Legal for the Petitioner.
Ms. Shyamali Gadre i/b Little & Co., for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
N. S. Chitnis 1/28
::: Uploaded on - 11/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 15/05/2026 23:59:33 :::
wp.4068.2022.doc
Mr. Karan S. Thorat, 'B' Panel Counsel, for the Respondent No.4-
State.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 4th MAY 2026
JUDGMENT (Per Manjusha Deshpande, J.) :
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the parties. Ms. Gadre, waives notice on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Thorat waives notice on behalf of the respondent No.4-State.
2. The petitioner is challenging the rejection of his application for allotment of an industrial plot in MIDC, Chakan, Phase-II. Petitioner had applied for a plot of land in the year 2006 and after a prolonged delay the Land Allotment Committee (for short 'LAC') has rejected his application, which was later corrected by the Hon'ble Minister (Industries) directing allotment of 2000 sq.mtrs of plot to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner has deposited the required Earnest Money Deposit (for short 'EMD') amount, despite the compliance by the petitioner, the respondent No.3 has rejected the N. S. Chitnis 2/28 ::: Uploaded on - 11/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 15/05/2026 23:59:33 ::: wp.4068.2022.doc application of the petitioner vide letter dated 24 th May 2018.
The representations addressed by the petitioner against the said rejection have remained unattended, therefore the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by way of present Writ Petition filed on 29th April 2019, seeking directions to set aside the rejection letter dated 24th May 2018, and direction to allot him a plot of land admeasuring 2000 sq.mtrs in the MIDC, Chakan, Phase-II.
3. The learned advocate for the petitioner Mr.Vachan Bodke, submits that the order of rejection is passed by the respondent No.3 in violation of principles of natural justice and without recording any reasons. There is no justifiable reason as to why the earlier allotment granted in his favour has been rejected by the impugned communication. He submits that he is an owner of proprietory firm viz. M/s Chakan Precision, which is manufacturing special purpose machines, jigs and fixtures i.e. a complete 'Tool Room' set up. The estimated area required for setting up his business 'Tool Room unit' was 500 sq.mtrs. Therefore, he filed an application for N. S. Chitnis 3/28 ::: Uploaded on - 11/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 15/05/2026 23:59:33 ::: wp.4068.2022.doc allotment of an industrial plot for manufacturing and assembling of the above mentioned machines on 26th June 2006. In response to his application he was called upon to furnish further details in a proforma addressed to the Area Manager, MIDC, Pune on 9 th February 2007. On 20th November 2009, he was in a receipt of a communication from the respondent No.1, informing him that the industrial land of 500 sq.mtrs requested by him is not available, however, he was given an option to accept an Industrial plot at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per sq.mtrs if available, in the alternative to accept the industrial shed (gala) and in case of readiness for either of the two, to communicate the measurement of area of a plot required by him. He has readily accepted both the options informing that he is ready to pay Rs.2,500/- per sq.mtrs for a plot of 500 sq.mtrs and if an industrial shed is available, he is also ready to accept is by making payment of Rs.1,000/- per sq.mtrs.
4. It is submitted that after his communication showing his willingness to accept both the options vide his communication 27 th N. S. Chitnis 4/28 ::: Uploaded on - 11/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 15/05/2026 23:59:33 ::: wp.4068.2022.doc November 2009, there was no response again for a long duration and all of a sudden he received a communication dated 20 th September 2013, calling upon him to remain present for a meeting with all his documents for consideration of his application before the LAC. The meeting of the LAC was conducted on 30 th September 2013, wherein his application has been rejected by the Committee. When the record pertaining to the said meeting was placed before the Hon'ble Minister of Industries, he has issued directions to issue an offer letter for allotment of land of 2000 sq.mtrs to the petitioner. The petitioner places reliance on the office noting dated 13 th November 2014, in support of his aforementioned contentions.
5. In view of the direction of the Hon'ble Minister, offer letter was issued by the respondent No.1 to the petitioner. The application of the petitioner was scrutinized by the LAC on 22 nd October 2013, on scrutiny of his application a plot admeasuring about 2000 sq.mtrs was offered to the petitioner calling upon him to deposit a Demand Draft of Rs.16,62,500/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Sixty Two N. S. Chitnis 5/28 ::: Uploaded on - 11/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 15/05/2026 23:59:33 ::: wp.4068.2022.doc Thousand and Five Hundred Only) towards the EMD, within a period of fifteen days from the date of the communication dated 13 th November 2014. After that again there was no communication whatsoever from the respondent No.1, nearly for a period of two years, therefore, the petitioner had addressed a representation to the respondent No.1 on 30th September 2016, requesting to allot him a plot of land of 2000 sq.mtrs which is already sanctioned by the LAC. The office note dated 2nd September 2016 and 7th September 2016 reflect that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 have proposed to allot plot No.C-22/5/3 admeasuring 2352 sq.mtrs instead of plot No.D-105, thereby making additional area 352 sq.mtrs admissible to him. There were two communications dated 11th November 2016 and 13th December 2016 confirming the allotment of Plot admeasuring about 2000 sq.mtrs at an concessional rate and remaining 352 sq.mtrs at the prevailing industrial rate. However, the Deputy Chief Executive Officer No.2, had made a noting that only 2000 sq.mtrs plot shall be admissible to the petitioner and no additional area can be given to him. The petitioner received information from the office of the respondent N. S. Chitnis 6/28 ::: Uploaded on - 11/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 15/05/2026 23:59:33 ::: wp.4068.2022.doc Nos.1 to 3 about the aforementioned office notings. Thereafter, the subject matter was put up before the higher authorities for approval for effecting partitioned of Plot No.C-22/5/3 and allotment of newly partitioned plot of 2000 sq.mtrs to the petitioner.
A query was raised by the Deputy Chief Executive Officer, for change in the allotment of plot from D-105 to C-22/5/3, when already offer letter was issued for 2000 sq.mtrs of plot. An office note with a remark was made calling into question the procedure regarding allotment directly by the Minister when already the LAC had refused such allotment.
Upon such query being raised the matter was referred to GM (Legal) for his opinion on 23 rd August 2017, who opined that it is only the LAC who is empowered to allot the plots. On receiving such opinion the Chief Executive Officer, has made a remark on the said note that, the request of the petitioner to allot the plot cannot be considered in view of the legal opinion, hence request of petitioner stands rejected. This decision was communicated by the respondent No.1 vide communication dated 24 th May 2018. After receiving such N. S. Chitnis 7/28 ::: Uploaded on - 11/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 15/05/2026 23:59:33 ::: wp.4068.2022.doc communication the petitioner has collected information about all the office notings resulting in impugned order and thereafter he is challenging it in the present Writ Petition.
6. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that grave injustice has been caused to the petitioner. All the interested persons have been allotted plots by the LAC of the Corporation and have also commenced their operations. On the other hand, inspite of complying with all the conditions including deposit of earnest money amount of Rs.16,62,500/- on 27th November 2014, the respondents have kept the decision pending for years together and eventually rejected his request arbitrarily. It is submitted that the application of the petitioner was pending since 2006 till 2013. Thereafter when he had deposited the EMD amount it was further kept pending upto 2018, which has caused him a great prejudice. The respondent No3 has failed to appreciate that role of LAC is only recommendatory which is to be approved by the Hon'ble Minister of Industries, to make it effective. It is further submitted that the respondent No.3 had no N. S. Chitnis 8/28 ::: Uploaded on - 11/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 15/05/2026 23:59:34 ::: wp.4068.2022.doc authority to overturn the decision of the Hon'ble Minister who is the final decision making authority under the applicable policy.
The rejection of his application is in violation of principles of natural justice, which is made without issuing any notice or granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The respondents are esstoped from revoking the allotment since, the petitioner has acted upon the offer given by the respondents by depositing the earnest money of Rs.16,62,500/- therefore considering that the petitioner has already acted upon the offer of the respondents, they are now estopped from revoking their offer.
7. The learned advocate further submits that the respondents have failed to adhere to their own policy and procedure by disregarding the final decision of the Hon'ble Minister. They have retained the EMD for years together and have failed to refund it, as mandated in the procedure. Most importantly there is an inordinate delay of over a decade which is entirely attributable to the MIDC, thus, the action of the respondents is manifestly arbitrary, particularly N. S. Chitnis 9/28 ::: Uploaded on - 11/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 15/05/2026 23:59:34 ::: wp.4068.2022.doc in reversing the decision of allotment of plot, when compared to other applicants who have already been allotted plots and have already started functioning. It is therefore submitted that the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
8. The learned advocate Ms. Shyamali Gadre, representing the respondent Nos.1 to 3, has staunchly opposed the prayers made in the petition. Relying on the affidavit filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3, she submitted that the letter dated 13 th November 2014, was never an allotment order but a conditional offer subject to submission of revised DPR, blue application and execution to Agreement to Lease. No specific plot number was allotted to the petitioner, even the Agreement to Lease was not executed, therefore, the entire petition is based on misconception. Section 64 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (for short 'the MIDC Act') empowers the Corporation through its Board, CEO and LACs to allot land vested in it. A ministerial noting cannot override a decision by a duly constituted LAC, dispensing with the statutory requirements. Even the Minister is N. S. Chitnis 10/28 ::: Uploaded on - 11/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 15/05/2026 23:59:34 ::: wp.4068.2022.doc bound to act within the statutory framework.
9. The learned advocate further submits that the CEO has not set aside any adjudicatory order but has simply declined to implement the internal noting that was found to be contrary to the binding statutory provisions. Once having obtained the opinion of GM (Legal) stating that, the allotment was not as per law, it was obligatory for the CEO to refuse to give effect to such noting. She further submits that the impugned decision is a reasoned administrative action, taken by the competent statutory authority. The adverse LAC decision followed by a inconsistent direction, on a office note by the Minister cannot by itself create a vested right, when already statutory regulations are in place for disposal of Industrial land, for which powers are vested with the specified Committees. It is denied by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 that the offer letter and payment of earnest money has created legitimate expectation or acquisition of any binding right. It is merely an offer subject to certain conditions with an stipulation that failure to comply with it, will result in application being reconsidered. The Maharashtra N. S. Chitnis 11/28 ::: Uploaded on - 11/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 15/05/2026 23:59:34 ::: wp.4068.2022.doc Industrial Development Corporation ('for short 'MIDC') reserves the right to reject the application altogether, without assigning any reasons. There can be no estoppel against the statue and the pubic authorities cannot be compelled to act in breach of law.
As regards issue of earnest money deposit, it is submitted that the EMD has been accepted with a clear understanding that no interest would be payable, in the event the petitioner revokes his offer within three months or fail to pay balance occupancy amount and fail to execute the Agreement to Lease within a stipulated period, the MIDC is at liberty to forfeit the earnest money without prejudice to its right. The learned advocate further submits that the plot in question is already allotted to some other eligible applicant, therefore, the prayer of the petitioner would not be maintainable, since the land in question is no more available for allotment. It is thus submitted that there is no substance in the writ petition and it deserves to be dismissed.
10. We have heard the respective parties and also perused the documents placed on record. This petition has been filed in the year N. S. Chitnis 12/28 ::: Uploaded on - 11/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 15/05/2026 23:59:34 ::: wp.4068.2022.doc 2019, with a prayer to allot the plot of 2000 sq.mtrs in MIDC, Chakan, Phase - II to the petitioner by quashing and setting aside the letter of rejection dated 24th May 2018. During the pendency of this Writ Petition the respondent No.1, has issued a letter dated 27 th January 2023, addressed to the petitioner informing that, he was offered a plot of 2000 sq.mtrs as per the decision of the LAC on 13 th November 2014, since he has failed to deposit the residual amount of the lease premium, his allotment stands cancelled.
11. The petitioner is aggrieved by the cancellation of his allotment based on the office noting. On perusal of the impugned letter dated 24th May 2018, it is evident that due to alleged failure to comply with the necessary formalities the request of the petitioner for allotment of industrial plot has been rejected.
The petitioner has initially made an application on 26 th June 2006, along with necessary documents for allotment of the industrial plot in the MIDC at Chakan, Phase II. His request was responded by calling upon him to submit his application, in a format N. S. Chitnis 13/28 ::: Uploaded on - 11/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 15/05/2026 23:59:34 ::: wp.4068.2022.doc prescribed under the MIDC Act. Accordingly, he has submitted his application, as directed by the respondent No.1. By communication dated 20th November 2009, he was informed that the land according to his requirement with the given measurements was not available, therefore, he was called upon to give his options to the two alternatives, mentioned in the communication, failing which it will be presumed, that he is no more interested and his application would stand disposed of. In response to this communication, the petitioner has communicated his readiness for both the options, by informing that he is ready for allotment of plot at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per sq.mtrs for an open plot admeasuring 500 sq.mtrs and even for the industrial shed of 500 sq.mtrs at the rate of Rs.1000/- per sq.mtrs. Inspite of his prompt response, his application was kept pending for a considerable length of time. After a long gap, the local LAC in its meeting held on 30 th September 2013, has refused to consider, his application favourably. When the minutes of the said meeting were placed before the Hon'ble Minister for his approval and further orders, he has issued directions that the petitioner should be offered a N. S. Chitnis 14/28 ::: Uploaded on - 11/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 15/05/2026 23:59:34 ::: wp.4068.2022.doc land of 2000 sq.mtrs and accordingly, offer letter should be issued to him.
On perusal of the said office noting dated 13 th November 2014, we find that this noting is clear and unambiguous which refers to the decision of the LAC and the Hon'ble Minister to allot 2000 sq.mtrs of the plot to the petitioner by issuing an offer letter. Thus, the said noting categorically mentions that, this decision for making an offer to the petitioner was a joint decision of the LAC as well as the Hon'ble Minister.
In furtherance of the said office noting the respondent No.1 has issued an offer letter to the petitioner on 13 th November 2014, which informs the petitioner that his application has been scrutinized by the Land Allotment Committee and the Competent Authority on 22nd October 2013 and it has been decided to offer land admeasuring 2000 sq.mtrs. at the rate of Rs.3,325/- as a premium for said land. He was further requested to submit a 'Blue Application' complete in all respect and a Demand Draft of Rs.16,62,500/- towards the earnest money. The petitioner has promptly submitted the demand N. S. Chitnis 15/28 ::: Uploaded on - 11/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 15/05/2026 23:59:34 ::: wp.4068.2022.doc draft along with an application dated 24 th November 2014, and other necessary documents such as the affidavit, proposed land, project file etc. The petitioner has acted on the offer letter at his end by completing all necessary formalities and was awaiting further communication from the respondent Nos.1 to 3. In view of the necessary compliance, the petitioner has legitimately expected, that he will be allotted the plot of land for his industrial use within a reasonable time. Unfortunately, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 have not taken any steps in furtherance of the offer letter. Hence he has preferred a representation to the respondent No.1 on 30 th September 2016 communicating his grievance. Instead of allotting the available plot to the petitioner, the application of the petitioner was kept pending and at the same time various notings were made on his proposal by the respondent authorities, Initially it was proposed to allot him Plot No.C-22/5/3 instead of Plot No.D-105. Even that decision was reviewed on the ground that area 352 sq.mtrs was in excess to the approved area by the LAC which is 2000 sq.mtrs. N. S. Chitnis 16/28 ::: Uploaded on - 11/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 15/05/2026 23:59:34 :::
wp.4068.2022.doc Therefore, it was eventually decided by the Assistant Planner Vide noting dated 30 August, 2016, to recover additional charges for the excess area as per norms and policies of the Corporation. This noting was approved on 2nd September 2016 as well as 7th September 2016 by the Deputy Chief Executive Officer. Instead of implementing the above decision the respondents have again reviewed the said order by making an endorsement on the office noting dated 11 th November 2016, that the petitioner is entitled only to 2000 sq.mtrs of the land which is offered to him, hence no additional area should be alloted to him. This endorsement was made on 19th December 2016.
It appears that there was again a change in the decision of allotment of Plot No.C-22/5/3. Instead of division of the plot by deducting 352 sq.mtrs of land from the said plot, it was decided that considering that the adjacent Plot No.C-22/5/2 admeasuring 2360 sq.mtrs was not allotted to anybody it was decided to get revised layouts of both the plots and thereafter allot 2000 sq.mtrs of plot to the petitioner, After this office noting dated 27 th April 2017, when the plot was about to be allotted, again an objection was raised that, N. S. Chitnis 17/28 ::: Uploaded on - 11/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 15/05/2026 23:59:34 ::: wp.4068.2022.doc inspite of rejection of the request of the petitioner for allotment of plot by the Land Allotment Committee the Hon'ble Minister has issued directions to allot the plots and accordingly offer letter has been issued, which is not in accordance with the Rules, therefore, the proposal was put up before the GM (Legal) to examine whether this plot could be allotted and whether the LAC and Hon'ble Minister are both empowered to allot the plot independently.
From all the above notings it appears that the respondents were taking two steps forward and one step backward, as a result of which, inspite of depositing the EMD, the petitioner's proposal has been kept lingering for years together.
12. Although the learned advocate for the respondents during the course of arguments had submitted that no particular plot had been identified to be allotted to the petitioner and only a decision was taken to allot 2000 sq.mtrs of plot, this submission is not in consonance with the office notings. It is evident from the office notings that initially it was decided to allot Plot No.D-105 to the N. S. Chitnis 18/28 ::: Uploaded on - 11/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 15/05/2026 23:59:34 ::: wp.4068.2022.doc petitioner, thereafter it was decided to offer Plot No.C-22/5/3, therefore, we do not find any force in the submission of the learned advocate for the respondent that, the plot of land was never identified to be allotted to the petitioner. Infact the office noting dated 27 th April 2017 itself shows that it was proposed to allot Plot No.C-22/5/3 by carving out an area of 2000 sq.mtrs from the said plot. Inspite of such decision being taken, an unwarranted objection without any basis has been raised, by way of an office noting dated 30 th May 2017, re- examining the powers of the Hon'ble Minister to pass an order for allotment of land to the petitioner.
13. When such endorsement was made by Assistant planner it was decided to refer the matter to GM (legal) for his opinion. In the proposal submitted for consideration of the GM (legal), it is stated that the corporation has delegated the powers to the Land allotment committee under the chairmanship of CEO/Joint CEO/Deputy CEO in furtherance, of the circular dated 31 st August 2012. the Hon'ble Minister (Industries) and the chairman of the MIDC is empowered to N. S. Chitnis 19/28 ::: Uploaded on - 11/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 15/05/2026 23:59:34 ::: wp.4068.2022.doc take decision on the proposals submitted by the Regional Officer, after receiving opinion of Local Land Allotment Committee. The proposal of the petitioner was accordingly submitted by the Regional Officer before the Hon'ble Minister (Industries) for his approval. The sanction has been given to the allotment as per the orders issued by the Hon'ble Minister. On this detailed submission being put up, the GM (legal) has given an opinion that the corporation is governed by MIDC Act, 1961 and land disposal regulation Rules 1975, which prescribes the manner in which the government land shall be dealt by the corporations. Any allotment of land by giving a go by to the prescribed procedure, even by the authorities is not permissible, it has to be done according to the statutory provisions and regulations. In view of the opinion given by the GM (Legal), the Deputy CEO II has endorsed that, the request of the petitioner for allotment of land, is not maintainable, hence his request is rejected.
14. In furtherance of the said decision, the petitioner has been informed by order 24th May 2018, that in view of his failure to comply N. S. Chitnis 20/28 ::: Uploaded on - 11/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 15/05/2026 23:59:34 ::: wp.4068.2022.doc with legal formalities in, furtherance of the offer letter the request made by him stands rejected.
15. We find that the very order by way of which rejection has been communicated to the petitioner does not stand to the test of reasonableness. The ground on which the application was rejected is totally erroneous and contrary to the record. As already observed hereinabove the petitioner has already submitted an application in the format as required by the respondent No. 1 on 26 th June 2006. On receiving the further communication dated 20 th November 2009, he has submitted the EMD amount on receiving the offer letter 13 th November 2014, along with all the necessary documents which was accepted by the respondent. Had there been any lacuna or deficiency at his end, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 would not have taken further steps for allotment of plot to the petitioner, which they have taken as can be seen from the internal notings of the respondents. All these years, the petitioner has been pursuing his proposal for allotment of land, during which he has not received a single communication N. S. Chitnis 21/28 ::: Uploaded on - 11/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 15/05/2026 23:59:34 ::: wp.4068.2022.doc requiring him to make further compliance. Even the respondents have not stated in their affidavit about any non-compliance of conditions by the petitioner. Even the impugned order refers to the three communications' addressed to the petitioner, (1) His application dated 26th June 2006 (2) The meeting of Local LAC allotment committee 30th September 2013 and (3) The offer letter issued by respondent No.1 dated 13th November 2014. Thus the reason for rejection is not supported by any record.
In fact, the reason recorded in the noting is not the reason for rejection mentioned in the impugned order/letter dated 24 th May 2018.
16. From its affidavit as well as office noting, the stand of the respondent appears to be that only the LAC is empowered to allot a plot. Any allotment contrary to prescribed procedures is not permissible, even the Hon'ble Minister (Industries) is supposed to act in accordance with the statutory provisions. In the meeting, of the LAC, dated 30th September 2013, the ground for refusal of plot to the N. S. Chitnis 22/28 ::: Uploaded on - 11/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 15/05/2026 23:59:34 ::: wp.4068.2022.doc petitioner appears to be that, the Proprietory Firm of the petitioner was engaged in mechanical job work and as per DPR the proposed activity was agro and food processing therefore after scrutiny of his application, it was rejected. The proposal of the petitioner did not suffer from any other disqualification hence, when it was placed before the Hon'ble Minister (Industries) for his approval and further orders, a decision is taken by the Local LAC and the Hon'ble Minister to offer a plot of 2000 sq.mtrs to the petitioner. In view of the said decision the offer letter has been issued to the petitioner on 13 th November 2014.
It needs to be appreciated, that the petitioner who is a proprietor of a firm, engaged in manufacturing of special machines has made a reasonable demand for 500 sq.mtrs of land by his application dated 25th August 2006, for which the offer letter came to be issued 13th November 2014, that is after a gap of almost eight years. After accepting the demand draft of huge amount of 16,62,500/- his proposal was kept pending all these years without returning his amount and all of a sudden this communication cancelling his N. S. Chitnis 23/28 ::: Uploaded on - 11/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 15/05/2026 23:59:34 ::: wp.4068.2022.doc allotment came to be issued, which reflects arbitrariness of the Respondents. It also reflects the lethargic and callous approach of the authorities. If at all, the offer for allotment of plot issued in favor of the petitioner was not in consonance with the statutory provisions, it should've been reviewed immediately or at least within a reasonable period. It also needs to be appreciated after issuing the impugned communication dated 24th May 2018, during its pendency, the respondent No.1 has again issued a communication dated 27 th January 2023, informing the petitioner that, in view of his failure to deposit the residual amount of the lease premium within the prescribed period his allotment stood automatically cancelled. This communication again does not appear to be in consonance with the own stand of the authorities. Once already having communicated to the Petitioner vide communication dated 24.05.2018, about non compliance of the necessary conditions entailed in cancellation of allotment of his land. There was no question of making any residual payment unless the petitioner was offered a plot, and called upon to deposit balance consideration, no such offer has been made by the respondent. Hence, N. S. Chitnis 24/28 ::: Uploaded on - 11/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 15/05/2026 23:59:34 ::: wp.4068.2022.doc even this communication is a classic example of non application of mind by the authorities. Where they cancel a allotment of plot which is already cancelled 5 years ago.
17. Even though it is claimed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 that, the decision of allotment of plot to the petitioner, was taken by the Hon'ble Minister (Industries) alone, which is contrary to the decision of the LAC dated 30th September 2013. Upon perusal of the noting dated 13th November 2014, it is evident that, the decision is unanimously taken by the LAC and Hon'ble Minister. Which is further supported, from the contents of the offer letter dated 13 th November 2014, which in no uncertain terms mentions that, the application of the petitioner has been scrutinized by the LAC and the Competent Authority on 22nd October 2013, and decided to offer him land admeasuring 2000 sq.mtrs. Thus it is evident from the communication that after the meeting of 30th September 2013, of the LAC rejecting the application of the petitioner, the LAC in its subsequent meeting dated 22nd October 2013, has decided to allot the land to the petitioner. The N. S. Chitnis 25/28 ::: Uploaded on - 11/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 15/05/2026 23:59:34 ::: wp.4068.2022.doc subsequent impugned communication dated 27 th May 2023, also gives reference to the decision of the LAC to offer 2000 sq.mts land to the petitioner. As such the documents issued by the respondents itself refer to the decision of the LAC to allot land to the petitioner, which is contrary to their stand taken in their affidavit.
18. Similarly, in the affidavit filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3, dated 28th April 2026, nowhere it is stated that, the plot of land has now been allotted to some other applicant, but while opposing the petition the learned Advocate Ms. Gadre, made a statement that, the land is no more available, as it is already allotted to somebody else. This approach is not acceptable, when a affidavit is filed just eight days ago does not contain any such averment, making such statement across bar gives rise to obvious conclusion that, it is made only with an intent to dislodge the claim of the petitioner.
19. In the wake of the above observation made hereinabove in our view, both the impugned communications dated 24 th May 2018, N. S. Chitnis 26/28 ::: Uploaded on - 11/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 15/05/2026 23:59:34 ::: wp.4068.2022.doc and 27th January 2023, do not refer to the irregularity in allotment of the Plot to the petitioner. It only refers to the non compliance of the necessary conditions by the petitioner, which stands falsified by the fact that, no communication was ever issued to the petitioner calling upon him to do the necessary. The affidavit filed by the respondents do not justify the impugned communications by giving appropriate reasons. The stand taken by the respondent is contrary to the record. Hence, we find that the grievance of the petitioner needs to be redressed by setting aside the arbitrary decisions of the respondents- authorities by issuing direction to allot him the industrial plot, according to this request. Accordingly, we pass the following order:-
ORDER (1) The writ petition is allowed;
(2) The impugned order/letter dated 24 th May 2018, cancelling the offer for allotment of plot in MIDC, Chakan, Phase-II, issued by respondent No.1 is quashed and set aside; (3) It is directed that the respondent No.1 shall allot a plot of 2000 sq.mtrs in the industrial area of Chakan, Phase-II, N. S. Chitnis 27/28 ::: Uploaded on - 11/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 15/05/2026 23:59:34 ::: wp.4068.2022.doc to the petitioner as per the decision taken by the Land Allotment Committee and the Hon'ble Minister (Industries) on 13th November 2014. The amount of Rs.16,62,500/- deposited by the petitioner towards the EMD, shall be adjusted from the total lease amount of the industrial plot that would be allotted to the petitioner.
Rule is made absolute on the aforesaid terms. Petition is allowed and is accordingly disposed of.
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. BHARATI DANGRE, J. N. S. Chitnis 28/28 ::: Uploaded on - 11/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 15/05/2026 23:59:34 :::