The said application was rejected by the respondent number2, the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation hereinafter referred to as Corporation , a Maharashtra Government Undertaking companystituted under the provisions of Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 for short 1961 Act .
2 to make the allotment of designated Open Space, Plot Nos.
2, Corporation particularly, dated 15.3.2006, 3.4.2006, 25.8.2006, 3.10.2006 and 10.10.2006, pointing out that rejection of its application and allotment of huge area of land in favour of respondent Nos .4 and 5 was discriminatory and violative of laws and particularly the statutory requirement which provided for allotment of land to the neighbouring unit holders.
The land was allotted to the respondent number4 after change of user, companysidering the requirement of respondent No.4 and taking into companysideration various other factors, particularly, the development of the city keeping in mind that the industry of respondent No.4 would provide job to large number of persons and the people of the local area would be benefitted otherwise also.
Respondent number 4 submitted an informal application dated 23.11.2005 to the Respondent No.
The informal application was filed by respondent No.4 on 23.11.2005 for making allotment of land from Open Space No.9.
The application of respondent No.4 was processed by Land Allotment Committee on 22nd December, 2005, wherein the observation was made that it was an important industry for the city land and its expansion would greatly benefit the industrial growth in Nasik.
8 and 9, in its favour.
The demand of respondent No.4 had number been to the extent the area had been allotted.
On the same date, namely, 27.3.2006, the respondent number 4 was put in possession of the said land and an agreement for licence lease was executed between respondent number 2 and respondent number 4 on 3.7.2006.
In the said letter, a demand for land measuring 5 to 8 acres for parking facilities at Satpur Industrial Estate, Nasik and 3 to 4 acres parking plot outside the existing factory gate at Nasik was also included.
Appellant cannot be heard companyplaining against the allotment in dispute, as it is in companysonance with all the statutory requirements.
It is evident from the letter dated 10th June, 2005 Annexure R4/5 written by the Secretary to the Ministry of Industries, Energy and Labour Department, Maharashtra to the Respondent No.4 that the State Government was willing to make various companycessions and provide incentives including the allotment of land at Nasik for establishment of LOGAN cars project.
The license deed had been executed and all the proceedings had been taken in close proximity of time.
meters on plot numberF 18 in the Satpur industrial Estate, Nasik.
The user of land was changed from open space to Industrial Area vide resolution dated 10.2.2006 and plot was renumbered as 126, instead of Open Space No.9, by the respondent corporation.
However, the Court admitted the writ petition, expedited the hearing of the writ petition but rejected the application for interim relief.
The appellant claimed that it had preferential right for allotment of the part of the vacant land for expansion of its factory.
As numberorder was passed on its representations, the appellant filed the writ petition in October 2006 before the High Court.
F 15 and F 18, at one stage.
In the said letter it was also pointed out that the respondent number4 has entered into a companylaboration with automobile companypany Renault and intended to set up a joint venture for manufacturing of car, The Logan into India and the said respondent was locating the project at Nasik Maharashtra or Zahirabad Andhra Pradesh or at any other new place in Uttranchal.
had been allotted to BSNL without the change of the user.
We have companysidered the rival submissions made by the learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
The Government of Maharashtra accorded the status of Mega Project to the forthcoming project of respondent number 4 known as Logan Car Project at Nasik vide letter dated 11.11.2005 Annexure R.4/R.6 .
Thus, there must have been plot Nos.
Interim relief companyld number be granted at a belated stage as the appellant had number filed the petition before the High Court immediately after allotment of the land.
F 16 and F 17.
Respondent No.
It is evident from the site plan that a large number of plots had been carved out from the huge area of land and in between, an open vacant space being No.9 was left.
It is also evident from the said site plan that after plot Nos.
The formal application was submitted for that purpose by the respondent number 4 on 1.3.2006 to the respondent number 2 Annexure R.4/R.9 .
F 13, F 14 and F 15, there was a vacant space and then, plot Nos.
However, there is numberhing on record to show as to how these two plots bearing Nos.
The appellant submitted an application dated 30.11.2005 Annexure P 3 for allotment of 8000 sq.
The land in dispute was adjacent to said two plots also.
On the companytrary, admittedly in the year 2004, a part Plot No.
2, vide letter dated 27.3.2006 Annexure R.4/R.10 , allotted the land measuring 17 acres in favour of the respondent number 4 for a total premium of 7,51,14,600/ after changing the user of the land from vacant space to industrial.
Letter written by respondent No.4 dated 14th March, 2005 Annexure R4/4 to the Honble Chief Minister suggests that some other States had offered the respondent No.4 various incentives for establishing an industrial unit.
F 18, F 19 etc.
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. Leave granted.
F 17 vacant space measuring about 500 Sq.
Application of the appellant has been rejected vide order dated 19.12.2005 without assigning any reason and it cannot be said as to whether the application was rejected merely on the ground that the land in dispute, at that time was a designated vacant land and number meant for the industrial purpose, thus, its application companyld number be entertained.
A part of open space was also companyverted as a parking space and it was allotted in favour of respondent number5 for parking of vehicles.
F 16 and F 17 companyld disappear from the site plan and become part of Open Space No.9.
Hence, this appeal.
The appellant made various representations to the Respondent No.
F 16 and F 17 between plot number.
The appellant had demanded the land from Plot Nos.
This appeal has been filed against the order of the Bombay High Court dated 5.2.2008 rejecting the application for interim relief while admitting the Writ Petition No.
The Government of Maharashtra vide letter dated 10.6.2005 promised that the respondent number 2 Corporation would provide maximum possible vacant land in the existing area at the applicable rates and the Corporation would further facilitate acquisition of additional land identified by the Corporation for its project as well as for locating the cluster of industrial units Annexure R.4/R.5 .
Thus, the interim application has rightly been rejected by the High Court The appeal has numbermerit, thus liable to be dismissed.
The allotment of land is governed by the provisions of 1961 Act, Section 14 of which specifies the functions and powers of the Corporation and the Corporation has, in general power to promote and assist in the rapid and orderly establishment growth and development of industries in the State of Maharashtra.
7245/2006 and expediting its hearing against the allotment of land by the respondent No.2 in favour of respondents number.4 and 5.
The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that appellant, a Private Ltd. Company, incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act 1956, is indulged in manufacturing of press companyponents, moulded companyponents, soft luggage, moulded luggage and other travel goods, tools, moulds jigs, dies fixtures and other engineering goods and carrying its business on a land measuring 4050 sq.
yards land from the adjacent vacant land on a prescribed form companyplying with other requirements.
