AMBAR AUTO ENGINEERS PVT LTD v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROU. THE MINISTRY OF INDUSTRIES AND ORS
Rejection of Pre-Emptive Right Claim: Bombay High Court Upholds MIDC Allotment of Industrial Plot, Citing Bishan Singh v. Khazan Singh on Limited Scope of Pre-emption.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:56924-DB
Decision Date: 23-12-2025
List of Laws
Writ Petition; Civil Procedure; Land Allotment; Right of Pre-emption; Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) Regulations
- Facts: Ambar Auto Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (the Petitioner) sought the quashing of an allotment order for Plot No. H-145/2 in MIDC Area, Ambad, Nashik, which was allotted to M/s N.T. Engineers (Respondent No. 4). The Petitioner claimed a pre-emptive right to the plot, arguing that it was adjacent to their existing plot and that they had previously applied for its allotment. The Petitioner had initially applied for three plots, including H-145/2, but later modified their application to exclude it, and were allotted an amalgamated plot (H-146/2A) instead.
- Procedural Posture: The Petitioner filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, challenging the allotment order in favor of Respondent No. 4 and seeking a direction to allot the plot to themselves. The case was heard and disposed of by the High Court.
- Issue: Does the Petitioner have a pre-emptive right to the allotment of Plot No. H-145/2, and was the allotment of the plot to Respondent No. 4 illegal?
- Holding: No, the Petitioner does not have a pre-emptive right to the plot, and the allotment to Respondent No. 4 was not illegal. The Writ Petition is dismissed.
- Reasoning: The Court found that the Petitioner had initially applied for Plot No. H-145/2 but subsequently modified their application to exclude it. They were then allotted an alternative plot (H-146/2A) and executed a lease deed for it. The Court noted that the Petitioner did not raise any grievance regarding the non-allotment of Plot No. H-145/2 at that time. The Court also observed that the allotment to Respondent No. 4 was made after following due process. The Court cited the Supreme Court judgment in Bishan Singh v. Khazan Singh AIR 1958 SC 838, emphasizing that the right of pre-emption is not a right to the thing sold but a right to the offer of a thing about to be sold, and that such a right is a weak right that can be defeated by legitimate methods. The Court concluded that the Petitioner's claim of a pre-emptive right was "totally erroneous" and that the MIDC had not committed any breach of public trust in allotting the plot to Respondent No. 4.
🔒 For Members Only