Ketan Kunverji Desais vs Gujarat Industrial Developmentcorporation & 1

1. RULE. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent.

2. The petitioner by way of present petition, seeking following relief:

a) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this petition.

b) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus against the respondent GIDC directing the respondent GIDC to consider the circular of the GIDC dated 26.06.2002 (Annexure­K) and accordingly not less than 3% of the total land lost by the petitioner, be directed to be allotted to the present petitioner.

c) By appropriate writ, order or direction, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent GIDC to allot in his favour plot No.C­5/52 & 53 as the injunction granted in SCA No.6565/2001 is vacated.

d) By appropriate writ, order or direction, Your Lordships may be pleased to declare the order of rejection of the representation (Annexure­L) dated 13.12.2011 as illegal and void and be pleased to quash and set aside the same.

e) Pending admission, hearing and/or final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to restrain the GIDC from allotting plot No.C­5/52 & 53 situated at Vapi GIDC Estate to another person except the present petitioner.

2. The facts in short are such that the father of the petitioner was having land more than five acres at Vapi. As per the case of the petitioner, while taking over the land, the GIDC had framed a policy, whereby the land loser was allotted commercial plot for the establishment or rehabilitation of the family and said land was allotted at a 25% concessional rate. The petitioner’s father had made an application to the GIDC for the allotment of commercial plot. But after long time, the father of the petitioner did not get the land and therefore, he filed Special Civil Application No.7430 of 1999, which came to be allowed by this Hon’ble Court by order dated 14.9.2001. The land was not allotted even after the representation was made by the petitioner and therefore, he was constrained to file Special Civil Application No.7548 of 2002, wherein this Court direction by order dated 28.1.2010, that the GIDC was directed to consider the case of the petitioner to allow the plots bearing Nos.C­5/52, 53, 58 and 59. After six months period passed, no action was taken by the GIDC and therefore, petitioner wrote a letter, but the respondent had not responded the same. Hence, ultimately, the petitioner was constrained to file one Contempt Petition being Misc. Civil Application No.215 of 2011, wherein notice was issued and therefore, the respondent passed order, whereby the petitioner was called upon to deposit a sum of Rs.3,99,984/­. Though the order was passed by this Court for allotment of land shown in the order, the GIDC had not given same and in exchange thereof, commercial plot No.C­5/11 by order bearing No.538 dated 30.4.2011, commercial plot Nos.C­5/58 and C­5/59p admeasuring 499.98 Sq. Mtr. were alloted. As per the case of the petitioner, when this Court allowed the writ petition, had directed respondent to allot the plot bearing Nos.C­5/52, 53, 58 and 59 to the petitioner. The plot Nos.C­5/52 and 53 were under injunction of this Court passed in Special Civil Application No.6565 of 2001 and therefore, the GIDC was not able to give the possession of these two plots. The said petition was withdrawn and stay has been granted by this High Court with regard to plot Nos.C­5/52 and 53 was vacated. Therefore, again right has accrued on the petitioner to seek the plot to be allotted to him. The petitioner made representation on 16.5.2011. The petitioner is land loser since last more than 20 years. The present petitioner filed one another Special Civil Application No.14028 of 2011 and in that petition, this Court passed order on 29.9.2011 directed the respondent to decide the representation of the petitioner on 16.5.2011 within six weeks.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Shah for the petitioner stated that the respondent Authority has not decided the issue about the allotment of land as per order of this Court passed in Special Civil Application No.7542 of 2002 dated 28.1.2010, the respondent – GIDC is bound to allot the lands of plot Nos.C­5/52, 53, 58 and 59, however, plot Nos. C­5/58 and 59/p admeasuring 500 Sq. Mtr. are allotted and rest of two plots about 720 Sq. Mtr. which the GIDC has not allotted. He also submitted that in the case of one Hirabhai Bababhai Patel, who is similarly situated person like the petitioner, wherein the respondent has allotted 2000 Sq. Mtr. land and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get the land on the basis of parity. Learned advocate further stated that the respondent Authority has not yet considered the case of the petitioner.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi for the respondent opposed the submission of the learned advocate for the petitioner. He submitted that there are number of land losers and their applications were received by the GIDC and all the applicants are required to be dealt with and every party cannot be provided with land as desired. The petitioner has already been allotted the land and approx. 500 Sq. Mtr. of land is allotted at a concessional rate. He further stated that the petition claimed particular commercial plot Nos.C­5/52 and 53 and said plots are not still cleared and there is no order of this Court to dispose of these plots. He further submitted that in petition being Special Civil Application No.14028 of 2011 decided by this Court 20.9.2011, this Court directed the respondent Authority to consider the representation. The representation of the petitioner after considering all aspects, was rejected by the respondent Authority. He submitted that once the allotment is finalized and once the petitioner accepted the plot and agreement is entered into, then the same issue cannot be repeatedly raised before this Court. He also submitted that now the policy is changed and under the said policy, 3.5% of the land lost is only available. He lastly submitted that the petition is required to be rejected.

5. I have perused the petition along with papers. I have considered the submissions laid down by the parties. It appears that the petitioner is land loser, which is an admitted and undisputed fact. As per prevailing policy of the respondent G.I.D.C., the petitioner is being allotted only 499 Sq. Mtrs. of land and therefore, the petitioner has resorted the policy by way of present petition. From the policy, it is crystal clear that the land losers are entitled for 3.5% of the land lost under acquisition so as to rehabilitate land loser. I have also considered the affidavit filed by the respondents. As per direction issued by this Court vide order dated 29.9.2011 in Special Civil Application No.14028 of 2011, the petitioner made representation, which was rejected by the respondent without considering their own policy.

6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is directed to the respondent – G.I.D.C. to allot the deficit land (439 Sq. Mtr.) to the petitioner after following due procedure, within three months from the date of receipt of this order. The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

In view of the above direction, Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

YNVYAS (Z.K.SAIYED, J.)