1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2726 OF 2009 (Ramesh Bapurao Nikhade .v. State of Maharashtra and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Parihar, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 and 5. Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for the respondent Nos.2 to 4. Shri A.P. Kalmegh, Advocate for the respondent No.6. CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. 06TH JULY, 2010. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. By this writ petition, the petitioners is seeking direction to the respondents to allot 24,000 square meters of land out of 05-6 as shown in the map of MIDC for Butibori Industrial Area for starting High Tech Horticulture Project. The petitioner has also prayed for setting aside the allotment of land vide order dated 17.10.2006 in favour of respondent No.6 and restrain the respondents from giving physical possession of the land allotted to them. It appears that the petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 5987 of 2006 for similar reliefs and at that time learned Counsel for MIDC had made a statement and on the basis thereof the petition was disposed of vide order dated 26.11.2007. The relevant observations in the order dated 26.11.2007 read thus :- “Shri Agnihotri, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 4, states that State Government in August, 2002 had taken a decision not to allot land falling within MIDC zone for horticulture. However, though that decision was temporary in nature, same is still in existence. It is submitted that as and when State Government lifts the ban/stay in respect of allotment of land for horticulture, the above referred applications of the petitioner along with other 2 applications, if any, would be considered on their own merits according to law and procedure applicable in this regard provided there is no other legal impediment in doing so. In the backdrop of the above referred facts, Shri Parchure, learned Counsel for the petitioner, seeks permission to withdraw the petition”. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review petition, seeking review of the order dated 26.11.2007 whereby Writ Petition No. 5987 of 2006 was disposed of. The grievance of the petitioner in the review petition was that the respondents allotted lands to some other persons as named in the review petition and, therefore, it was contended that the request/prayer of the petitioner ought to have been considered by respondents for allotment of land. That review petition was also disposed of by making the following observations. “... even if it is presumed that some allotment is done by respondent inconsistent with the ban imposed by the State Government that would not give any legal right to the petitioner to seek allotment of land”. Shri M.M. Agnihotri, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that the allotment of land in favour of respondent No.6 was for educational purpose and it was done in pursuance of the development control rules and, therefore, it cannot be stated that the allotment was done contrary to the ban. On instructions, he submits that the ban imposed in 2002 is still in force and as and when the State Government lifts the ban/stay in respect of allotment of land for horticulture, the application of the petitioner along with other applications, if any, would be considered on merits in accordance with law and by following the procedure applicable in this regard provided there is no other legal impediment in doing so. Similar statement was also made and recorded when Writ Petition No. 5987 of 2006 was disosed of vide order dated 26.11.2007. In view of the statement made by the learned Counsel 3 for the respondent Nos.2 to 4, we dispose of this writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to adopt appropriate remedy if the land is not allotted to them after lifting of the ban/stay in respect of allotment of land for horticulture. JUDGE JUDGE *rrg.