Bombay High Court: In a PIL filed by an NGO against allotment of land by MIDC to relatives of Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) at concessional rates, without following the tender procedure, the Division Bench of Alok Aradhe, CJ. and Sandeep V. Marne*, J., dismissed the petition.
The Court held that when Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Disposal of Land Regulations, 1975 (the Land Disposal Regulations) as well as Board Resolutions fixing concessional rates which empowers MIDC to entertain direct applications of allottees and fixing concessional rates, have not been challenged, then such allotments can also not be challenged as well, unless the allotment is demonstrably arbitrary.
Background
The petitioner, a social organisation and a public trust set up with the objective of eradicating corruption, alleged that public land, intended for industrial development in the State, was allotted at throwaway prices and on concessional rates by MIDC, to various persons closely related to the Ministers and MLAs, contrary to the provisions of Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Act, 1961 (MIDC Act).
Therefore, the petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the said allotment on two grounds. Firstly, the allotments were made without implementing tender process and secondly, the allotments were made at concessional rates.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court noted that MIDC was established with the objective of ensuring planned and accelerated industrial development for which it had acquired several industrial areas and industrial estates throughout the State. State Government had sanctioned powers to MIDC under the Land Disposal Regulations. The Land Disposal Regulations provided for preparation of layout of land transferred by the State Government to MIDC. This also allowed MIDC to dispose of plot of land either by public auction or by entertaining regular applications.
Thus, it was opined by the Court that MIDC has been given a leeway to allot land in a given case without undertaking the auction process, with the aim of attracting industries in a particular area. Therefore, 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 was not necessary that in every case, the allotment must be done by implementing a tender process. As a Special Planning Authority, the MIDC had formulated Development Control Regulations (DCRs) which regulate the manner in which the lands in an industrial area is to be developed.
The Court took note of MIDC’s submission that 60% of land in an industrial area could be used for industrial purposes, 25% area for the purposes of roads, pipelines, footpath, etc., 10% of the area was required to be maintained as open spaces and the balance 5% area is required to be used for amenities such as post offices, telephone exchanges, schools, colleges, educational institutions, training centre, etc. Regarding the fixation of rates for allotment of plots, MIDC had put forth various resolutions adopted by its Board from time to time fixing such rates. Furthermore, the Court took note of MIDC’s specific contention that the impugned allotments have been made strictly in accordance with the Land Disposal Regulations and the Board Resolutions.
The Court observed once 5% land in an industrial area is earmarked for amenities spaces, which include educational institution, it is the duty of MIDC to ensure that educational institutions are set up in such earmarked land. Additionally, the Board Resolutions had fixed 50% concessional rate for allotment of amenity plots and open space plots but the petitioners did not challenge the validity of Land Disposal Regulations or DCR of MIDC or any of the Board Resolutions for the same.
The Court pointed out that the decision to allot amenity plots to educational institutions at 50% concessional rates was otherwise not demonstrated to be arbitrary to the object sought to be achieved, by the petitioners. The Court further said that petitioners have questioned allotment of plots without implementing tender process or public advertisements. “If the State action is bonafide and reasonable, Courts need not interfere in allotments only on the ground that no advertisement was issued or enough publicity was not made”. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the PIL and held when the petitioners have chosen not to challenge the Land Disposal Regulations as well as Board Resolutions fixing concessional rates, which empower MIDC to entertain direct applications of allottees and fixing concessional rates, the end result in making allotments to various educational institutions can also not be challenged, unless the allotment is demonstrably arbitrary.
[Bhrastachar Nirmoolan Sangathana v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2963, decided on: 20-8-2025]
*Judgement authored by- Justice Sandeep V. Marne
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Advocate for the Petitioners- Uday Warunjikar, Hrishikesh Nabar, Sumit Kate, Yash Jagdale, Advocates
Advocate for the Respondents- Neha S. Bhide, Government Pleader; O. A. Chandurkar, Additional Government Pleader; G. R. Raghuwanshi, AGP; Shyamali Gadre (Through VC), Ashwin Kulkarni i/b Little & Co., I. M. Khairdi, Huzefa Nasikwala, Idris Balasinorwala, Atharv A. Gidaye i/b Mr. Harshad Bhadbhade, Advocates
