Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Respondents 4 and 5 filed affidavit-in-reply on 05.10.2013, additional affidavit on 15.10.2013 and one more affidavit on 18.11.2013 to challenge the case of the petitioners. According to them, no illegalities / irregularities have been committed by the Regional Officers of the MIDC in allotment of industrial and mercantile plots to the allottees. It is stated that plots can be allotted by entertaining individual applications as per Regulation 4(ii) of the Regulations of 1975. According to them, the prescribed procedure was followed for allotment of the plots. As per the Development Control Regulations for M.I.D.C., 10% of the total area of the land of MIDC is required to be kept as open space and 5% of the area is required to be kept for amenities, such as, post office, telephone exchange, schools, colleges, educational institutions, training centres, etc. It is stated that there is no bar to convert open spaces and amenity areas into industrial or mercantile plots provided the area to the extent of 10% and 5% is left out as open space and amenity area respectively. Accordingly, after allotment of the plots to the allottees who had filed applications, more than 10% of the land has been reserved as open space and more than 5% of the land has been left for amenities. It is stated that the Regional Officers followed the circulars issued by the MIDC as well as the provisions of the Regulations of 1975 in allotment of the plots. It is stated that there is no bar for allotment of more than one plot to the members of a single family if they fulfill all the requirements for allotment of plots. It is denied that the allotment of the plots was not transparent or was tainted with corrupt practices, nepotism, favouritism and arbitrariness. It is stated that the allotment of the plots during the year 2006 to 2010 has not been challenged by any aggrieved person.

41. In the case of Owens-Corning India Ltd.

(supra) cited by the learned Counsel for respondent nos.4 and 5, the decision of the M.I.D.C. to dereserve the open space being plot No.OS 33, M.I.D.C. Phase II, Taloja and to allot the said plot to a Company (the second respondent in that case) for industrial use was challenged. As seen from the facts of the said case, the application of the respondent/Company was placed before the Land Allotment Committee comprising of the Joint Chief Executive Officer, the Chief Engineer and the Chief Planner. The Committee decided to convert Plot No.OS 33 as Plot No.T 21 Part. The matter was placed before the Space Allotment Committee comprising the Regional Officer, Mahape, Executive Engineer, Alibag, General Manager, DIC (Alibag) and President of the Taloja Manufacturers Association for conversion of the open space into the industrial plots. The Committee approved the proposal on the condition that the plot bearing Nos.L-71 and L-70 be converted into the open space to maintain stipulation as per the D.C. Regulations. Upon receiving approval for open space, the Chief Executive Officer approved conversion of plot No.OS 33 and the said plot was allotted to the respondent/Company on payment of requisite premium and the same had been placed in possession of the respondent/Company.

44. It has been mentioned in the impugned order dated 29.05.2013 that as seen from the noting dated 05.04.2010 at pages N/1 to N/7 (Exhibit R-5) the Joint Chief Executive Officer has approved the changes in the layout plan of M.I.D.C. on 07.04.2010. The copy of the said noting is produced by respondent no.5 with the affidavit-in-reply. It is a proposal made by the Deputy Planner to the Senior Town Planner, Chief Planner, Joint Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Officer. It seems that the said proposal has been approved by Town Planner and Chief Town Planner on 01.04.2010 and 05.04.2010, respectively. However, it does not seem to have been approved by the Deputy Chief Executive Officer and the Joint Chief Executive Officer. Any-way, no justification has been given in the proposal dated 05.04.2010 (Exhibit R-5) to change the user and locations of the open spaces. The open spaces and amenity areas are fixed at particular places in the layout plan considering the utility thereof at those places. The open spaces work as the lungs for the total area of land where they are located. Their locations could not and should not be changed indiscriminately at the whims of the Officer concerned. If the locations of the open spaces and amenity areas are to be changed, it would be necessary to give sufficient justification so that it would reveal that the object of keeping open spaces and amenity areas would be fulfilled by the proposed changes.

50. It is further mentioned in the Internal Committee Report that construction has been carried out over some of the plots described in Proformas 2 and 5 by encroaching upon the marginal open spaces. As per Regulation 38 of the D.C. Regulations of 1999 and Regulation 24 of the D.C. Regulations of 2009, marginal open spaces are required to be left open around the buildings. Thus, it would be incumbent on the part of the allottees to leave marginal open spaces open around the buildings as mentioned in these Regulations. Otherwise, the construction of the buildings to the extent it enters into the marginal open spaces around the buildings would be unauthorised and illegal. Such unauthorised development is liable to be demolished as per Regulation 20.1 of the D.C. Regulations, 1999. Moreover, as per Section 44 of the M.I.D. Act, 1961, where the erection of any building in an industrial estate or industrial area has been commenced or is being carried on, or has been completed, or any existing building is altered, in contravention of the terms on which such building or the land on which it stands is held or granted under this Act, any Officer of the Corporation empowered by it in this behalf may, in addition to any prosecution that may be instituted under this Act, make an order directing that such erection shall be demolished by the owner thereof within such period not exceeding two months as may be specified in the order, and on failure of the owner to comply with the order, the Officer may himself cause the erection to be demolished and the expenses of such demolition shall be recoverable by the Corporation from the owner.