Common allotment letters do not constitute deemed amalgamation to restrict individual transfers of distinct industrial plots.

The subject plots (Nos. 867, 868, and 869) at GIDC Makarpura were originally allotted to M/s. Gujarat Communication & Electronics Ltd. in 1979 via a single allotment letter

Following the company's winding up in 2002, the Petitioner purchased these plots, along with others, through a court-confirmed public auction in 2006 for Rs. 11.72 crores

A registered Sale Deed was executed by the Official Liquidator in 2010, and GIDC formally transferred the plots to the Petitioner in 2011

When the Petitioner sought to sell Plot Nos. 868 and 869 individually or through sub-division, Respondent No. 2 issued an impugned letter dated 06.06.2023, asserting that because the plots were originally allotted under one letter, they were "deemed amalgamated" and could not be transferred individually

The Petitioner challenged this, noting that the plots maintained separate plot numbers and that other plots from the same auction had been sold individually without GIDC objection

The Court primarily adjudicated based on the provisions of the Gujarat Industrial Development Act, 1962, and the administrative policies of the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC), specifically the Circular dated 03.06.1994 regarding the amalgamation and sub-division of plots

The Court applied the principle of administrative law that executive actions must not be arbitrary or lack a statutory basis; specifically, that a mere administrative circular cannot override the distinct legal identity of plots recognized in registered sale deeds and transfer orders

The Court observed that the Gujarat Industrial Development Act does not contain an express prohibition against selling individual plots of land even if they were part of a common allotment

It rejected the Respondents' contention that the plots were "deemed amalgamated" simply because they were listed in the same 1979 allotment letter, finding such an interpretation "arbitrary and erroneous"

The Court noted that the plots had consistently been treated as distinct entities in official records, including the 2010 Sale Deed and the 2011 Transfer Order, and held separate plot numbers throughout

The Court determined that imposing a requirement for "de-amalgamation" (and the accompanying fees) was a hurdle lacking statutory support, particularly since no formal amalgamation process had ever been initiated by the Petitioner

Furthermore, the Court noted that GIDC had previously allowed the individual sale of other plots from the same auction, establishing a precedent that contradicted their current stance

The Court held that the refusal to permit individual transfers was legally unsustainable

It directed Respondent No. 2 to permit the Petitioner to sell Plot Nos. 868 and 869, either as whole units or by further sub-division, subject to the payment of standard fees and charges as prescribed under the Act

The Court further instructed the Respondents to take a "sympathetic" approach in light of the Petitioner's status as a senior citizen seeking to dispose of the property