Bombay High Court

RAMABAI DIGAMBAR KULKARNIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: KISHORE C SANT SUSHIL M GHODESWAR

Holding

Land vested in MIDC cannot be returned to the original owner merely because it remains unused.

Summary

The petitioner, Ramabai Digambar Kulkarni, filed a writ petition seeking the return of land acquired in 1991 and handed over to the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) for an industrial area, alleging that the land remained unused. The MIDC rejected the request, stating the land was in its possession and there was no provision for returning it. The petitioner argued that the land should be returned as it served no purpose being idle. The respondents, including the State and MIDC, contended that the land vested with MIDC and could not be returned. The Court held that once land is acquired and vested with the Government and subsequently allotted to MIDC, there is no statutory provision to return it merely due to non‑use. Consequently, the petition was dismissed without costs.

Issues considered

Whether land acquired by the Government and vested in MIDC can be returned to the original owner solely on the ground of non‑use.

Subjects

land acquisition
unused land
MIDC
industrial area
vested rights
return of land

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:3876-DB




                                              (1)                      wp12750.16


                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                           34 WRIT PETITION NO. 12750 OF 2016

                                RAMABAI DIGAMBAR KULKARNI
                                          VERSUS
                          THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

           Ms. M.A. Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioner.
           Mr. S.J. Salgare, AGP for the respondent-State.
           Mr. G.S. Khaire h/f. Mr. S.S. Dande, AGP for the respoindent-State.

                                          CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT &
                                                  SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, JJ.
                                          DATE  : 28.01.2026

           PC :-

           01.          Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned
           Advocates for the respondents. This petition is filed challenging an order
           dated 21.07.2016 rejecting the proposal of the petitioner to return
           unused land from MIDC area, Osmanabad.         It is case of the petitioner
           that land came to be acquired in the year 1991.       The possession was
           taken over by the Government. The Government later on handed over
           the land to the MIDC for the purpose of setting up industrial area. It is
           further case of the petitioner that though the land is acquired in 1991, it
           is not put to any use by the Government or even by the MIDC.             The
           petitioner, therefore, made representation to the Authorities to return
           back the possession.


           02.          The   General   Manager     (Acquisition),   MIDC,    Mumbai
           communicated that the said request cannot be considered as the land is
           now in the possession of MIDC.
                                          (2)                     wp12750.16




03.                Learned Advocate for the petitioner argued that since 1991
the land is kept as it is without any use and no purpose would be served
by keeping the land without any use.              It needs to be returned to the
petitioner.


04.                Learned   Advocate   for     the   respondent-MIDC,   however,
opposes this petition. He submits that the land vests with MIDC. There
is no provision of return of land to the original owner for any reason.


05.                This Court finds that after acquisition, land vests with the
Government. It is for the Government to allot the land to MIDC, when
the land is acquired for industrial purpose. Thereafter, it is for the MIDC
to put the land to suitable use. There is no provision for return of land
merely because it is not used for considerable period.


06.                This Court does not find merit in the petition. This petition
stands dismissed with no order as to costs.




[SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.]                               [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]


snk/2026/Jan26/wp12750.16

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…