Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, C.J., AMIT BORKAR, J.
Santosh Madhukar Bhondve and Others – Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 3098 of 2021
Decided On : 12-09-2024
Land - Allotment of Gairan Land - MLRC 1966, Sections 22A, 40 - MRTP Act 1966, Sections 34, 35, 52(2) - Corporations Act 1949, Sections 3(3)(a), 3(3)(b) - The court interpreted the provisions regarding the diversion of Gairan land, concluding that the State has the authority to allot such land for public purposes under the PMAY, despite prohibitions, due to the overriding nature of the MRTP Act and the discretion vested in the Collector.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the allotment of Gairan land for affordable housing under the PMAY, arguing it violated Section 22A of the MLRC, which prohibits diversion of Gairan land without specific conditions being met.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Collector acted within his authority under Section 40 of the MLRC, and the land's designation under the Development Plan under the MRTP Act allowed for its use for public housing, thus upholding the allotment.
Issues: Whether the allotment of Gairan land for affordable housing under the PMAY violated the provisions of the MLRC, particularly Section 22A, and whether the Collector acted within his discretion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the State has the authority to dispose of government land for public purposes, and the provisions of the MRTP Act regarding land use take precedence over the restrictions in the MLRC.
Result: The petition was dismissed, upholding the allotment of land for affordable housing.
JUDGMENT :
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, C.J.
1. Heard Shri Anil Anturkar, learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioners, Shri Chandurkar, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 to 3-State and Shri Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, learned Senior Advocate representing respondent No. 4-Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation.
(A) Challenge:
2. This petition has been instituted assailing the validity of an order dated 18th June 2018 passed by the District Collector, Pune whereby a piece of land admeasuring 1H 46R comprised in Gut No. 96 situate at Mauje Ravet, Taluka Haveli, Dist. Pune has been allotted to respondent No. 4-Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) for development of a scheme of affordable housing under the Prime Minister Awas Yojana (hereinafter referred to as the PMAY).
3. The petition also challenges an order dated 13th July 2018 passed by the Additional Tahasildar, Pimpri Chinchwad, Taluka Haveli, Dist. Pune whereby the Additional Tahasildar has directed the Divisional Office, Chinchwad that possession of the land in question shall be given to the Commissioner of respondent No. 4-Corporation and that the compliance report should be submitted along with panchnama, 7/12 extract, possession receipt and sketch map in relation to advance possession of the said land. The letter/order dated 13th July 2018 further provides that the Commissioner of respondent No. 4 shall be granted certificate of occupancy Class-II and that the said entry shall be made in the revenue records. Challenge has also been made to the letter dated 9th July 2018 written by the Commissioner of respondent No. 4 to the Collector, Pune whereby consent was given to all the 10 conditions mentioned in the order of allotment made by the Collector, dated 18th June 2018. The petition also challenges the possession receipt dated 21st July 2018 executed between the Surveyor, Department of Urban Planning, Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation, Pimpri and the Divisional Officer, Chinchwad, Taluka Haveli, Dist. Pune on behalf of the Additional Tahasildar, Chinchwad, Taluka Haveli, Dist. Pune. An order dated 21st December 2012 passed by the Tahasildar, Haveli, Pune has also been challenged whereby an area of 0/20R in Gut No. 96 has been reserved for the office and residence of Talathi and another area of 0/20R has been reserved for the office and residence of Divisional Officer. The said order directed the Talathi office to register the entry to the said effect in the revenue records.
(B) Background facts:
4. The facts which are necessary for proper adjudication of the issues involved in this petition and which can be culled out from the pleadings and documents available on record of this petition are:
(b) Respondent No. 4 made a request for allotment of an area of 1H 46R out of Gut No. 96 for development.
(c) As per the revenue record of rights (Village Form No. 7) the said land is recorded as gairan land which means land for grazing cattles.
(d) By means of an order dated 21st December 2012 passed by the Tahasildar concerned, an area of 0/20 R was reserved for the office and residence of Talathi and in addition, an area of 0/20R was reserved for the residence and office of Divisional Officer.(e) Respondent No. 4-Corporation made a request for allotment of an area of 1H 46R for development, free of charge, out of Gut No. 96.
(f) The Divisional Commissioner, sometime in the year 2018 proposed the said land for transfer to respondent No. 4 for development of housing for economically weaker section of the society.
(g) The State Government, in the department of Revenue and Forest, vide its letter dated 26th April 2018 intimated to the Collector that the Government had received a proposal to transfer the land in question to respondent No. 4 for housing under the PMAY fo
The court established that the State can allot Gairan land for public purposes under the PMAY, overriding restrictions in the MLRC due to the authority granted by the MRTP Act.
Section 40 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code overrides Section 22A restrictions on Gairan land diversion, empowering State to allot for public purposes like PMAY housing after procedural compliances, ....
The court emphasized the need for local authorities' input in land allotment decisions to ensure compliance with community needs and statutory obligations.
Section 14 of RSIR Act, 2016 provides for public notice of draft Master Development Plan and invitation of objections from public including suggestions.
The court established that higher authorities cannot exercise statutory powers of lower authorities, and actions against interim orders are illegal.
Public land designated for a specific purpose cannot be acquired if re-designated for another use, and inaction by claimants can result in dismissal of subsequent challenges based on laches.
The allotment of land and delivery of possession in favor of the petitioner is a Government Grant within the meaning of the Government Grants Act, 1895. The State is not entitled to resume the land a....
The court established that misclassification of land does not negate the authority of the District Collector to allot land for public development under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.
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
