Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R.D. DHANUKA, J.
The Bharatiya Adhyatmic Society & Another – Appellants
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Others – Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 1569, 1977 of 2016
Decided on : 06-02-2020
The High Court of Bombay, while deciding the writ petitions filed by two parties, one challenging the cancellation of land allotment and the other seeking allotment of the same land, held that the impugned order passed by the Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, canceling the allotment of land to the petitioner in one writ petition and directing the Collector to take possession of the land and hand it over to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai for further use as per the development plan, was valid and justified. The Court found that the land in question was reserved for a Municipal Primary School in the sanctioned development plan of 1991 and the draft development plan of 2034. It also noted that the petitioner in the writ petition challenging the cancellation of allotment had not paid the consideration amount for the land and had not entered into any agreement with the State Government, thus creating no interest in favor of the petitioner in the land. The Court further held that the Chief Secretary had jurisdiction to decide the revision application filed by the petitioner in the writ petition seeking allotment of the land, as the matter had been remanded to the Chief Secretary by the Court itself. The Court also rejected the petitioner's argument that the reservation of the land for a Municipal Primary School in the development plan of 1991 could not be repeated in the development plan of 2034, as the modification of development plans is an ongoing process and is warranted from time to time depending on local needs and changes. The Court concluded that neither of the petitioners had established any right, title, or interest in the suit plot and dismissed both the writ petitions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner in Writ Petition No.1569 of 2016 was allotted a plot of land by the State Government for constructing a hall to conduct religious ceremonies. However, the petitioner did not pay the consideration amount and did not enter into any agreement with the State Government. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.1977 of 2016 was granted permission to occupy a gymnasium structure on the same plot of land for a period of five years, which expired in 2007. The petitioner continued to occupy the land even after the expiry of the lease period. The State Government issued an order canceling the allotment of land to the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1569 of 2016 and directing the Collector to take possession of the land and hand it over to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai for further use as per the development plan. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.1977 of 2016 filed a revision application before the Revenue Minister, challenging the cancellation of allotment. The Revenue Minister allowed the revision application and set aside the order of cancellation. The State Government then filed a writ petition in the High Court, challenging the order of the Revenue Minister. The High Court remanded the matter back to the Chief Secretary for a fresh decision. The Chief Secretary passed an order dismissing the revision application filed by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1977 of 2016 and upheld the cancellation of allotment of land to the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1569 of 2016. Both the petitioners filed separate writ petitions challenging the order of the Chief Secretary.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the impugned order passed by the Chief Secretary was valid and justified. The Court found that the land in question was reserved for a Municipal Primary School in the sanctioned development plan of 1991 and the draft development plan of 2034. It also noted that the petitioner in the writ petition challenging the cancellation of allotment had not paid the consideration amount for the land and had not entered into any agreement with the State Government, thus creating no interest in favor of the petitioner in the land. The Court further held that the Chief Secretary had jurisdiction to decide the revision application filed by the petitioner in the writ petition seeking allotment of the land, as the matter had been remanded to the Chief Secretary by the Court itself. The Court also rejected the petitioner's argument that the reservation of the land for a Municipal Primary School in the development plan of 1991 could not be repeated in the development plan of 2034, as the modification of development plans is an ongoing process and is warranted from time to time depending on local needs and changes. The Court concluded that neither of the petitioners had established any right, title, or interest in the suit plot and dismissed both the writ petitions.
Issues: 1. Whether the Chief Secretary had jurisdiction to decide the revision application filed by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1977 of 2016. 2. Whether the land in question was reserved for a Municipal Primary School in the sanctioned development plan of 1991 and the draft development plan of 2034. 3. Whether the petitioner in the writ petition challenging the cancellation of allotment had paid the consideration amount for the land and entered into an agreement with the State Government. 4. Whether the reservation of the land for a Municipal Primary School in the development plan of 1991 could be repeated in the development plan of 2034.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Chief Secretary had jurisdiction to decide the revision application filed by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1977 of 2016, as the matter had been remanded to the Chief Secretary by the Court itself. 2. The land in question was reserved for a Municipal Primary School in the sanctioned development plan of 1991 and the draft development plan of 2034. 3. The petitioner in the writ petition challenging the cancellation of allotment had not paid the consideration amount for the land and had not entered into any agreement with the State Government, thus creating no interest in favor of the petitioner in the land. 4. The reservation of the land for a Municipal Primary School in the development plan of 1991 could be repeated in the development plan of 2034, as the modification of development plans is an ongoing process and is warranted from time to time depending on local needs and changes.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed both the writ petitions, upholding the impugned order passed by the Chief Secretary.
JUDGMENT :
1. By Writ Petition No.1569 of 2016, Bhartiya Adhyatmic Society has prayed for a writ of Certiorari or writ in the nature of Certiorari seeking an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside order dated 20th January, 2016 passed by the Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra thereby setting aside order of grant of land bearing Survey No. 14, C.S.T. No.518, Plot No.3-A, area admeasuring 225 sq.mtrs. to the petitioner vide Government Memorandum and directing the Collector of Mumbai Suburban District to take possession of the land in question within 60 days from the date of the said order and to handover the said land to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai for further use as per the development plan.
2. Writ Petition No.1977 of 2016 is filed by the Chembur Multipurpose Complex under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia praying for writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 20th January, 2016 and for order and direction against the respondent no.2 to hear the review application of the said petitioner on merits. The said petitioner is respondent no.5 in the Writ Petition No. 1569 of 2016. By consent of parties, both these writ petitions were heard together finally and are being disposed off by a common order.
3. I will first summarize the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties in Writ Petition No.1569 of 2019 followed by the submission made by the learned counsel in Writ Petition No.1977 of 2016 and thereafter would deal with those submissions in the later part of this judgment.
The facts and submissions of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1569 of 2016:-
4. It is the case of the petitioner that on 17th February, 1996, the petitioner was registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act and under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. On 3rd February, 2009, the State of Maharashtra issued a notification through Under Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department informing that the land bearing Survey No.14(518) – C.T.S. No.518, Plot no.3-A area admeasuring about 225 sq.mtrs. was allotted to the petitioner for constructing a hall to conduct religious ceremonies post death etc. subject to charging market value as prevalent under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 and Rule 40 of Maharashtra Land Revenue (Allotment of Land) Regulations, 1971, subject to the various conditions set out therein.
5. On 9th March, 2009, the petitioner addressed a letter to the Collector, Mumbai Suburban District and acknowledged the said Government notification dated 3rd February, 2009 and conveyed that the petitioner was agreeable by the terms and conditions set out in the said Government notification. The petitioner also informed that it was awaiting communication for the survey and demarcation of the land free from all encumbrances. In the said letter, the petitioner requested the Collector, Mumbai Suburban District to fix the land price as prevalent in August 1998 when the petitioner applied for the said land whereas the decision to allot the said land was taken only in the month of August/September 2002. It was however made clear in the said letter that if for any reason, the request of the petitioner was not found acceptable, the land value be fixed as prevalent in August/September 2002 when the land was actually allotted to the petitioner.
6. On 9th April, 2010, the Revenue Department addressed a letter to the District Collector directing him to handover the possession of the said land to the petitioner. On 6th July, 2010, the learned District Collector addressed a letter to the petitioner informing the petitioner that an approval of plot of 225 sq.mtrs out of the said land was granted vide Government, Review and Forest Department as per the provisions given in Rule 40 of Maharashtra Land Revenue (Allotment of Government Land) Regulations, 1971, on the terms/conditions after recovering
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
