(1) By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:
“(A) This this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari, or a writ in the nature of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to correct, by means of a Writ of Certiorari, the impugned letter No.8616 dated 28/09/2000 EXHIBIT – 'A', issued by the respondent No.3 Regional Manager of the Corporation illegally rejecting the reasonable request of the petitioner for allotment of a Commercial Plot, which was claimed on the basis of the petitioner's family being a land Loser. The said impugned Letter No.8616 dated 28/09/2000, Ext.'A' be quashed and set aside.
(B) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against the respondents, ordering and directing the respondents:
(i) to allot, to the petitioner, or to his son, a better, bigger and suitable Commercial Plot in the Commercial Zone in the Vapi G.I.D.C. area, preferably 4 small plots from amongst the 27 plots presently available bearing No.C5/49 to 75, recently came in the actual, peaceful, legal physical and vacant possession of the Respondent Corporation, at the Vapi G.I.D.C., area behind the 'Skylon' building – and opposite 'Pruthvi Mal'.
(ii) to charge the petitioner the price of the Commercial Plots at the old rate, at which, the allotment was earlier made, and even the deposit was also paid by the petitioner, on 04/11/1993, by a Demand Draft, but the plot was not allotted to the petitioner on the said 'Lame Excuse' of late receipt of application from the petitioner.
(C) That pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, the respondents be restrained by an exparte 'Order' and 'Injunction' of this Hon'ble Court, from in any manner:
(i) allotting any of the Commercial Plots to any other person, land loser, company, firm or politician.
(D) The respondents be issued a mandatory Order, commanding and compelling the respondents to allot Commercial Plots to the petitioner at the concessional rate in the Vapi G.I.D.C. area, as per the said Policy evolved and followed till today, namely, giving discount to the land losers at the rate of 25 per cent of the price of the plots.
(E) Adinterim exparte reliefs in terms of prayer clauses 'C', above, be granted to the petitioner.
(F) That the petitioner may be granted such further and other relief or reliefs, as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.
(G) That the respondents be ordered to pay, to the petitioner, his costs of the petition and incidentals to the petition.
(2) The facts which can be culled out from the record of the petition are as under:
(2.1) It is the case of the petitioner that the lands belonging to the petitioner and his family have been acquired by the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation ('GIDC' for short) by initiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the years between 1967 1971. It is further the case of the petitioner that as per the policy of the GIDC persons who lose their lands were to be allotted commercial plot. The petitioner being a land loser as aforesaid and a resident of Village Chhiri filed an application on 04.11.1993 in pursuance to an advertisement published by the GIDC in Gujarati daily Gujarat Samachar dated 03.04.1992 along with a demand draft of Rs.500/, as per the condition of the aforesaid public notice on 04.11.1993. It further transfers from the record that as the aforesaid application of the petitioner dated 04.11.1993 was not responded to by the GIDC, the petitioner sent reminders on 23.03.1995, 27.02.1996 and lastly on 13.09.2000.
However, the petitioner was informed by communication dated 08.09.2000 that the application made by the petitioner cannot be entertained as the GIDC has decided as a policy not to entertain applications for allotment of commercial plots to land loser w.e.f. 01.11.1993. These basic facts give rise to the present petition.
(3) In response to the notice dated 16.04.2001 issued by this Court, the GIDC has filed affidavitinreply wherein it is contended that as the application made by the petitioner was not before the cutoff date, the petitioner was informed by communication dated 08.09.2000 that his application cannot be entertained and the question of allotment of commercial plot does not arise. As regards one additional contention raised by the petitioner in the petition whereby the petitioner has relied upon the order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application Nos.7430 of 1999 with 7431 of 1999 dated 14.09.2001. GIDC has contended in their affidavitinreply that case of the petitioners of the aforesaid two petitions have considered because in one case the petitioner was handicapped person and in another case the petitioner was belonging to a special category viz. SC/ST or EXserviceman. The petitioner has also filed affidavitinrejoinder and has further reiterated that the order dated 14.09.2001 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application Nos.7430 of 1999 with 7431 of 1999 is not only implemented but a review petition filed by GIDC being Misc. Civil Application Nos.876/2001 and 877/2001 came to be dismissed by this Court.
(4) Mr.Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner, has further relied upon a further affidavit filed by the petitioner wherein reliance is placed for by the petitioner upon the policy of the GIDC dated 07.11.2006 and a resolution dated 29.04.1995. It was further vehemently submitted that the decision taken by the GIDC not to allot the plot only on the ground that the policy has discontinued and the application filed by the petitioner was beyond the cutoff date is squarely covered by the aforesaid order dated 14.09.2011 of this Court.
(5) Per contra, Mr.M.B.Gandhi, learned advocate appearing for the respondentGIDC, has contended that the case of the petitioner is rightly considered and the decision taken by the GIDC not to allot commercial plot is legal and proper. It was further submitted that the case of the petitioner cannot be compared with the case of the petitioners of Special Civil Application Nos.7430 of 1999 with 7431 of 1999. It was also submitted that in fact on concession being given by the GIDC the aforesaid order came to be passed by this Court.
(6) Considering the submission made by the learned counsel and considering the order dated 14.09.2001 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application Nos.7430 of 1999 with 7431 of 1999 as well as in Misc. Civil Application Nos.876/2001 and 877/2001 it transpires that the GIDC has considered the applications of those petitioners which were received by the GIDC after the cutoff. It is not in dispute that the present petitioner otherwise qualifies the criteria of being land loser. The GIDC as acquiring body has already acquired the lands of the petitioner and his family and has developed an industrial estate over the same, as can be seen from the record of the petition.
(7) Considering the order dated 14.09.2001 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application Nos.7430 of 1999 with 7431 of 1999 the land loser cannot be denied his legitimate claim over the commercial plot only on the ground of delay in filing the application. It is no doubt true that on a pragmatic view taken by the GIDC in earlier case on the statement made on behalf of the GIDC and on the basis of such statement the GIDC was directed to consider the case of the petitioners of the aforesaid two petitions. However, the facts remain that the case of the petitioner is similarly situated, if not identical to the case of the petitioners of Special Civil Application Nos.7430 of 1999 with 7431 of 1999.
(8) Considering these vital facts, interest of justice would be served if the GIDC is directed to decide the application of the present petitioner de novo and consider the case of the petitioner in light of the earlier decision passed by this Court dated 14.09.2001 in Special Civil Application Nos.7430 of 1999 with 7431 of 1999, as noted hereinabove. Hence, it is hereby directed that as the issue is pending since 2000, the GIDC shall consider the same in the light of the directions issued by this Court in order dated 14.09.2001 in Special Civil Application Nos.7430 of 1999 with 7431 of 1999, as expeditiously as possible, latest by 30.09.2012.
(9) With these observations, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs. Direct service permitted.
*** Sd/ [R.M.CHHAYA, J ] Bhavesh*