Gujarat High Court
Ishamuddin Umar Godal vs Managing Director on 8 July, 2026
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16832/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16832 of 2012
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 2 of 2016
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16832 of 2012
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 3 of 2016
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16832 of 2012
==========================================================
ISHAMUDDIN UMAR GODAL & ORS.
Versus
MANAGING DIRECTOR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR NIRAV R MISHRA(6140) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3
MS. HETAL PATEL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR CHINMAY M GANDHI(3979) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 08/07/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
AGARWAL)
1. Mr. Nirav R. Mishra learned advocate for the petitioners
would submit that this petition, though has been tagged with
the Letters Patent Appeal No.985 of 2013, in view of the
issues raised therein, but it would be appropriate that it is
decided separately. We therefore delink Special Civil
Application No. 16832 of 2012 from the leading Letters Patent
Appeal No. 985 of 2013 and the same is being decided finally
by this order.
Page 1 of 8
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Tue Jul 14 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 00:51:19 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16832/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2026
undefined
2. It is submitted that one of the petitioners herein, namely
petitioner No. 1.1, as per the information received by him, is
not alive. However, no one has approached him to file the
substitution application. Moreover, he represents petitioner
Nos. 1.2 and 1.3, who have not contacted him for a long time
in-spite of repeated communications sent to them.
3. Be that as it may, the present petition has been filed
with the prayers originally made as under:-
“(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of
certiorari and or writ in the nature of certiorari and / or writ
of mandamus and/or writ in the nature of mandamus and / or
any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India and hold and declare that the
action and non-action of the respondents authorities in not
allotting the plot to the present petitioner in pursuance to
their old application dated 2-2-1994 at Annexure-c and in
their compliance to the letter dated 25-06-2010 for allotment
of commercial plot to the petitioner is arbitrary, illegal,
violative of Article 14, 16, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of
India;
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to hold and declare
that the petitioner is entitled for the allotment of plot of
approximately admeasuring 1500 Square Meters in
pursuance to the relevant circulars dated 1-11-1993 and 29-
4-1995 and their application dated 2-2-1994 and their further
compliance on 25-6-2010;
(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the
respondents GIDC Corporation to allot suitable commercial
plot in the commercial zone of Vapi GIDC Estate preferably
admeasuring 1500 Square Meters at the price of commercial
plot at the old rate prevalent at the time and year 1994 and
/or to allot the plot to the present petitioner in pursuance and
Page 2 of 8
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Tue Jul 14 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 00:51:19 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16832/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2026
undefined
in accordance with the rates prevailing in the year 1994 and
in compliance to the circulars dated 1-11-1993 and 29-4-
1995;
(D) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this
petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to restrain the
respondents GIDC Authorities not to allot any plot
approximately admeasuring 1500 Square Meters for
commercial purpose to any other person or commercial entity
and or any company situated at GIDC Vapi Industrial Estate;
(E) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this
petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS pleased may be please to grant
ad interim injunction ex parte in terms of Para 17 (D) herein
above;
(F) Any other and further relief/s deem fit, just and proper
may kindly be granted by this Hon’ble Court in the interest of
justice.”
4. By means of the amendment brought under the order of
this Court, the following prayers have been added:-
“23(CC) Your Lordship may be pleased to hold and declare
that the Communications orders dated 17.06.2016 and
01.07.2016 made by the Respondent GIDC is illegal,
arbitrary, vindictive and malafide in nature, the same are
coercive in nature and accordingly Your Lordships may be
pleased to further direct the Respondent GIDC to grant/allot
the present petitioners the commercial plot admeasuring
around 1216.42 Sq. meters at the ratio of 3.5% of 8.59 Acre
of acquisitioned land or more than at the prevalent from the
price of the year 1994.
23 (DD): Your Lordships may be pleased to hold and declare
that the Communications orders dated 17.06.2016 and
01.07.2016 are vindictive and coercive in nature and bad in
eye of law qua quantifying only 50 Sq. meters of the land to
the petitioners which is contrary to the Resolution of
Respondent GIDC dated 26.06.2002 and with that of
Circulars dated 01.11.1993 and 29.04.1995 and accordingly
Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the Respondent
GIDC to allot more land to substantiate the loss from the date
of acquisition of the land and to compensate in terms ofPage 3 of 8
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Tue Jul 14 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 00:51:19 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/16832/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2026
undefined
money with interest of Bank rate prevalent from time to
time.”
5. The petitioners are admittedly landloser and as per the
scheme of GIDC for rehabilitation of landlosers, they were
entitled to allotment of commercial plots within the premises
of GIDC at Vapi. It is contended that the GIDC, though issued
an advertisement in the year 1993 inviting applications from
landlosers for allotment for rehabilitation, but the applications
moved by the petitioners on 02.02.1994 were not considered
on the ground of delay in approaching the GIDC.
6. The petitioners then filed several representations,
however, when nothing was done, the present petition has
been filed in the year 2012, seeking direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the GIDC to allot plots pursuant to
the relevant Circulars dated 01.11.1993 and 29.04.1995, on
the application dated 02.02.1994 filed by the petitioners.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further invited
attention of the Court to the judgment and order dated
27.06.2012 passed by this Court in a similar set of dispute
raised by another set of landloser of District Vapi, wherein
Page 4 of 8
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Tue Jul 14 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 00:51:19 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16832/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2026
undefined
this Court had observed in Paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 as under:-
“(7) Considering the order dated 14.09.2001 passed by this
Court in Special Civil Application Nos.7430 of 1999 with
7431 of 1999 the land loser cannot be denied his
legitimate claim over the commercial plot only on the
ground of delay in filing the application. It is no doubt true
that on a pragmatic view taken by the GIDC in earlier case on
the statement made on behalf of the GIDC and on the basis of
such statement the GIDC was directed to consider the case of
the petitioners of the aforesaid two petitions. However,
the facts remain that the case of the petitioner is similarly
situated, if not identical to the case of the petitioners of
Special Civil Application Nos.7430 of 1999 with 7431 of 1999.
(8) Considering these vital facts, interest of justice
would be served if the GIDC is directed to decide the
application of the present petitioner de novo and consider
the case of the petitioner in light of the earlier
decision passed by this Court dated 14.09.2001 in Special
Civil Application Nos.7430 of 1999 with 7431 of 1999, as
noted hereinabove. Hence, it is hereby directed that as
the issue is pending since 2000, the GIDC shall consider
the same in the light of the directions issued by this Court in
order dated 14.09.2001 in Special Civil Application
Nos.7430 of 1999 with 7431 of 1999, as expeditiously as
possible, latest by 30.09.2012.”
8. Based on the above, it is submitted by Mr. Mishra that
the plea of GIDC for rejection of the claim of the petitioners
on the ground of delay is not entertainable.
9. Moreover, by means of the communications dated
17.06.2016 and 01.07.2016 sent by the GIDC during the
pendency of the present writ petition, the allotment of
Commercial Plot bearing Nos. C5/71+72+73/21 admeasuring
Page 5 of 8
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Tue Jul 14 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 00:51:19 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16832/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2026
undefined
approximately 49.97 sq. mtrs. has been made in favour of the
petitioners subject to the production of documents in the
office of GIDC, such as consent letter, affidavit, Pedhinama,
etc. The copy of the communication dated 01.07.2016 at Page
No. ‘110’ of the writ petition is evidence of the said fact.
10. The petitioners has also challenged the communication
dated 01.07.2016 for allotment of Commercial Plot as
aforesaid, which was subject to the production of the relevant
papers, and have not taken possession of the allotted plots so
far, as admitted by both the learned Counsels for the parties.
11. In view of the above, in our considered opinion, the
petitioners are entitled to allotment of Commercial Plot as per
the policy of the GIDC prevailing in the year 1993-1995, as
intimated vide communication dated 01.07.2016. We,
however, do not find any substance in the challenge to the
said allotment on the ground of the subsequent policy of 2002,
as asserted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners.
12. We further need to record the statement of Mr.
Page 6 of 8
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Tue Jul 14 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 00:51:19 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16832/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2026
undefined
Chinmay Gandhi, learned advocate for the respondent-GIDC,
based upon the telephonic instructions received by him that
the plots allotted to the petitioners vide communication dated
01.07.2016 are still vacant and available for transfer of
possession, provided the petitioners fulfill the requirements
of submission of relevant papers, as stated therein.
13. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the GIDC
that for the time elapsed during the pendency of the present
petition, there would be a requirement to seek
approval/sanction/permission from the Head Office of the
GIDC.
14. In view of the above, having found that there is no
substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the
petitioners to sustain the challenge to the communication
dated 01.07.2016 whereby commercial plot bearing Nos.
C5/71+72+73/21 admeasuring 49.97 sq. mtrs. has been
allotted to the petitioners during pendency of the present
petition, we dispose of the present petition with the directions
as under:-
Page 7 of 8
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Tue Jul 14 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 00:51:19 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16832/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2026
undefined
The petitioners shall approach the office of GIDC
by writing a representation along with the copy of this
order within a period of four weeks from today. In case
such a representation is filed, the Regional Manager,
GIDC, Vapi, District Valsad, shall be required to intimate
the petitioners of the requirements to be fulfilled by
them for completion of the process of allotment of the
plots offered in the communication dated 01.07.2016 of
the GIDC. On completion of such formalities, i.e.,
submission of the documents required by GIDC, the
aforesaid plots offered by GIDC shall be duly allotted to
the petitioners. However, in case of non-appearance of
the petitioners before the GIDC, it would be open for it
to deal with the plots in question, in accordance with
law.
15. Mr. Nirav R. Mishra, learned advocate, would submit
that he will make an effort to intimate this order to the
surviving petitioners Nos. 1.2 & 1.3. Consequently, the
connected Civil Applications stand disposed of
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(D.N.RAY,J)
BINA SHAH
Page 8 of 8
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Tue Jul 14 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 00:51:19 IST 2026
