( 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. 2026:BHC-AUG:3876-DB ( 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