The Sanad issued in 1920 constituted a permanent grant, not a lease, and the petitioner was denied a fair hearing, leading to the quashing of the resumption order.

JUDGMENT :

GAURI GODSE, J.

1. These petitions arise out of the orders passed regarding a land bearing CTS No. 3762 at Nashik, granted to Shri Ahmedsaheb Kadarsaheb Kokani under the Sanad dated 31st October 1920, issued by the then Government.

Facts in brief:

2. The brief facts, according to the petitioners, concerning the dispute between the parties are as under:

3. Shri Ahmedsaheb Kadarsaheb Kokani, on 7th April 1910, purchased a superstructure (old post office structure) standing on CTS No. 3762 at Nashik. On 13th October 1920, the then Government granted a Sanad in favour of Ahmedsaheb Kadarsaheb Kokani (“original Sanad holder”) for the land below the said superstructure (“land”). The document of Sanad, dated 13th October 1920, specified that the grant was heritable and transferable. It was a lease in perpetuity with fixed rent for fifty years from 1910-1911 to 1960-61, subject to renewal of the rate of revenue after fifty years. The deceased petitioner (“petitioner”) is the grandson of the original Sanad holder. The name of the petitioner was mutated in the City Survey revenue record as the heir and legal representative of the original Sanad holder. In 1928, the deceased respondent no.1(“respondent”) was inducted as a tenant of the structure standing on CTS No. 3762. On 30th November 1971, the respondent made an application for a permanent grant of the land in his favour. On 23rd March 1972, respondent no. 11-Collector informed the petitioner that the lease of the land had expired and hence called upon the petitioner to show his ownership rights, failing which the land would stand resumed in favour of the Government. On 4th September 1972, the learned Collector dismissed the respondent’s application dated 30th November 1971 on the ground that the land was not available for distribution.

4. Learned Collector issued a show cause notice dated 13th April 1987 to the petitioner on the ground that the lease period had expired, and the land was liable to be resumed to the Government. The show cause notice stated that the structure standing on the said land was given on rent without prior permission from the government, and hence, the same was in breach of the terms of the original Sanad. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice and contended that the superstructure on the said land was purchased in 1910 for a sum of Rs. 606/- in auction proceedings. The said superstructure was given on rent to one Ziauddin Yasin Khatib for the purpose of use of Godown, and the respondent was residing as a sub-tenant. The learned Collector passed an order on 4th May 1988, directing the resumption of the land in the Government on the ground that the period of the lease had expired and there was a breach of the terms and conditions of the Sanad. Learned Collector observed that the land was granted to the original Sanad holder on conditions and as per clause (B) of the Rules of 1921 framed under the then Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (“BLRC”); hence, the same was not transferable without prior permission of the Government. The learned Collector further observed that the land was to be used only for the purpose for which it was granted. Hence, according to the learned Collector, the Sanad holder had given land on rent by committing a breach of the terms and conditions of the Sanad.

5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Collector, the respondent filed a revision application before the Revenue Minister. In the meantime, the petitioners had challenged the said order dated 4th May 1988 before the Additional Commissioner by filing an Appeal No. 16 of 1994. By order dated 29th April 1991, the learned Minister allowed the revision filed by the respondent, and the order passed by the learned Collector was quashed and set aside, further directing the learned Collector to treat the respondent as a class-II occupant. In view of the order passed by the learned Minister, the respondent was declared a class-II occupant by the subsequent order dated