The petitioner by way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has approached this Court with following prayers:
"(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dtd. 18.11.2011 passed by the Resp. No. 1 and further be pleased to direct the respondent corporation to restore back the possession of the plot Nos. 2011 and 2012 in Chhatral GIDC Estate;
(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to restrain the respondent Corporation from restoring the Plots Nos. 201 and 2012 in Chhatral GIDC Estate, to any other party."
In short the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18/11/2011 passed by competent authority of respondent GIDC rejecting the representation preferred by the petitioner for the grounds stated there under.
Facts in brief leading to filing this petition deserve to be set out as under.
The petitioner was allotted plot in concerned GIDC area being Plot No. 2010. Petitioner wanted to take benefit of the prevalent policy of GIDC to allot contiguous plots for putting up "new projects" and hence requested concerned GIDC to allot him two more plots, namely plot no. 2011 and 2012 which came to be allotted to the petitioner under the allotment order dated 26/3/1999. Unfortunately, for the reasons beyond his control petitioner could not develop these two plots and as the purpose of allotting these two plots were defeated concerned GIDC initiated proceedings under Public Premises Eviction Act and recovered possession thereof on 16/6/2003. The GIDC came out with a scheme which is produced at page no. 100 of the petition dated 9/12/2009, wherein it was provided that ex-plot holders from whom possession was recovered and the plots were lying vacant and if they approach the Corporation within five years of their dispossession, then their request be considered for reallotment. This scheme was extended and accordingly petitioner applied and paid deposit of Rs.5,85,000/- and receipt is produced on the record of this petition. Petitioner's request was not considered hence petitioner filed writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 13807 of 2011 which came to be disposed of by this Court on 4/10/2011 and petitioner was relegated to avail remedy. Accordingly petitioner preferred representation on 18/10/2011 and the authority turned down representation vide order dated 18/11/2011. Hence the present petition.
Learned advocate for the petitioner has made following submissions in support of the petition, that:-
(a) The Corporation having accepted the deposit for considering the request for re-allotment of the plot could not have refused and or declined the request for re-allotment as the Corporation was estopped from rejecting the request. The Corporation has accepted the deposit as could be seen from the receipt produced on record. Therefore it was not open to the Corporation to reject the request for re-allotment.
(b) The advocate for the petitioner has contended that as per policy of the Corporation itself floated under resolution/ circular dated 3/6/1994, the contiguous plots allotted are permitted to be consolidated and once plots are consolidated, even if those additional plots are not being utilized, then, it is to be treated as used on account of it being consolidated and hence on this ground also it was not open to the Corporation to contend that the plots i.e. plot no. 2011 and 2012 were not utilized and therefore it was not open to the Corporation in the first instance to recover possession and second instance to decline the request for re-allotment thereof.
(c) Petitioner's advocate further contended that the Corporation ought to have considered their internal communications wherein it was indicated that the Corporation has in fact re-allotted plots in cases like the present petitioner. Therefore declining request of re-allotment made by petitioner was nothing but discrimination hitting provision of Article 14 of the Constitution squarely.
(d) Learned advocate has further contended that the scheme for consolidating plot existing in the year 1994 is not considered by the Corporation while rejecting request and therefore the petition is required to be allowed and appropriate order is required to be passed.
This Court is of the view that this petition is required to be dismissed in limine for the following reasons.
(i) The fact remains to be noted that the petitioner came to be in possession of two plots, namely plot no. 2011 and 2012 only on account of petitioner's own request and as per policy existing then that contiguous plots if any are to be preferred to be allotted to the plot holder in case they are desirous of putting up "new project". Admittedly petitioner was allotted possession of these two new plots in addition to his original plot in the year 1999 itself and till 2003 when possession was recovered by following due procedure of law. No development of any nature is pleaded or provided. Therefore one can safely deduce that petitioner did not put up any construction or put them to use for "new project" for which plots were allotted as per the existing scheme.
(ii) Petitioner accepted the factum of recovery of the plots from petitioner and did nothing thereafter. The proceedings where under petitioner's plots were recovered by GIDC attained finality.
(iii) Petitioner thereafter wanted to avail benefit of the scheme which was floated in the year 2009. If one looks at the scheme very closely then it would be clear that scheme was available for the persons approaching the Corporation whose possession were taken within 5 years therefrom. In the instant case admittedly 5 years period was over on June 2008 itself. However, there was an exception made that in case if plots are vacant then it could be considered even if 5 years period is over. But it was not the intention of the Corporation to create any right in favour of the persons or applicants seeking re-allotment nor was the applicant entitled to receive possession back only on making application. In other words the re-allotment was based upon the merit of the individual applicant and his case, which in my view cannot be said to be in any way obnoxious and contrary to provision of law. Petitioner's case therefore was considered on merits and competent authority has found that the purpose for which the plots came to be allotted was for putting up 'new project' and when new project was not set up petitioner cannot seek as a matter of right for re-allotment based upon old policy of 1994, where under the contiguous plots were permitted to be consolidated and non-use thereof was treated to be used. In fact the concerned authority have not elaborately dealt with this aspect of contiguous consolidated plots but that alone in itself in my view would not render the order invalid, as the fact remains to be noted that the authority was entitled to reject the representation only on ground that the petitioner who was given plots for putting up new project had failed in putting up 'new project' and that failure cannot be justified and or pleaded to be ignored by the authority on other policy which is not the policy under which the plot was originally granted to the petitioner.
(iv) The order impugned, in my view contains specific reasons for rejecting the representation which needs no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The petition being bereft of merits deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
[ S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J ] /vgn Top