Entitlement to rehabilitation plots cannot be denied to land losers solely on the ground of delay.

The petitioners, identified as "landlosers," sought the allotment of commercial plots in the Vapi GIDC Estate as part of a rehabilitation scheme

They applied on February 2, 1994, following a 1993 advertisement

The Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC) initially failed to consider their applications, citing delay

In 2012, the petitioners filed this writ petition seeking mandamus for allotment based on GIDC circulars dated November 1, 1993, and April 29, 1995

During the pendency of the petition, GIDC issued communications on June 17, 2016, and July 1, 2016, offering Commercial Plot Nos. C5/71+72+73/21 (49.97 sq. mtrs.) subject to document verification

The petitioners challenged these offers, claiming entitlement to larger plots (approx. 1500 sq. mtrs.) under a subsequent 2002 policy

1. Whether the GIDC could validly reject the petitioners' applications for rehabilitation plots solely on the grounds of delay

2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to larger plot allotments based on the 2002 policy rather than the 1993-1995 circulars

The Court applied the principle of parity and non-discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, relying on its own precedent in Special Civil Application Nos. 7430 and 7431 of 1999 (decided on September 14, 2001), which held that a legitimate claim of a landloser for a commercial plot cannot be denied solely due to delay in filing the application

The court applied the principle that allotment rights are governed by the policy prevalent at the time of the initial application/scheme (1993-1995) rather than subsequent modifications unless specifically applicable

The Court observed that the petitioners were similarly situated to those in previous litigations where delay was excused to protect the rights of landlosers

The Court found no merit in this challenge, determining that the petitioners' rights were rooted in the 1993-1995 policy framework under which they originally applied

Since the GIDC confirmed that the plots offered in 2016 remained vacant and available, the Court found the existing offer to be a fair resolution, provided the petitioners fulfilled procedural requirements like submitting a Pedhinama and affidavit

The Court directed the petitioners to submit a representation to the Regional Manager, GIDC, Vapi, within four weeks. The GIDC is directed to intimate the necessary formalities and, upon completion of document submission, duly allot the specified plots to the petitioners. If the petitioners fail to appear or fulfill requirements, GIDC is permitted to deal with the plots according to law. Application disposed