LAWS(BOM)-2004-7-21

BASANT KUMAR JAIN Vs. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER MAHARASHTRA

Decided On July 21, 2004
BASANT KUMAR JAIN Appellant
V/S
REGIONAL OFFICER, MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27. 9. 2001 passed by the 7th Additional district Judge, Pune, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, JD, Pimpri, on 17. 1. 1995 in Reg. Civil Suit No. 1209/89 came to be set aside holding that the trial Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the suit in question. Factual Matrix:

(2.) THE appellant herein (the "plaintiff for short)filed civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge, SD, Punne, contending that the plot bearing No. A-2 located in II block, MIDC, Pimpri Industrial Estate, Bhosari, Pune, was reserved for industrial purpose. The plaintiff applied for allotment of this plot under Regulation 4 (ii) of the MIDC Disposal of Land Regulations, 1975 vide his application dated 10. 1. 1986 in the prescribed form (Ex. 49), with a view to establish manufacturing unit. (The said plot is hereinafter referred to as "suit plot" for the sake of brevity ).

(3.) THE defendants -respondents (the 'defendant' for short) rejected the said application of the plaintiff for the allotment of the said plot being reserved for amenity purposes. The plaintiff alleged that as per section 2 (ii) of the Maharashtra Industrial Act, 1961 (the "mid" Act for short) whenever plot is reserved for an amenity, the State Government is required to specify such purpose by publishing notification in the Official gazette. Since no such notification was ever published by the MIDC, as he contends that suit plot was never reserved for any amenity. All other neighbouring plots were allotted for industrial purposes. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants on 17. 3. 1989 published one public notice in daily "sakal" inviting applications for allotment of the plots for commercial purposes. The suit plot was shown to be available for allotment in the said advertisement as such refusal to allot suit plot to the plaintiff was malafide.