Classification among leaseholders regarding Nazul leases by the Government Resolution does not violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, aimed at timely renewals.

JUDGMENT :

SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. D.V. Chauhan, learned Senior Counsel/Government Pleader instructed by Assistant Government Pleader Mr. H.D Marathe waives service of notice for the respondents/State. By consent of the parties the petition is heard finally.

2. The petitioners are the holders of permanent and perpetual Nazul lease of the properties belonging to the Government, in whose favour leases were executed by the Government and eventually renewed at the periodical period. So far as renewal of the Nazul lease and re-fixation of lease is concerned, it was governed by the relevant policy promulgated by the Government of Maharashtra at the relevant point of time. Every renewal is governed by the Policy enacted by the Government of Maharashtra in that regard and the same was regulated by the Government Resolutions dated 28/12/2011 vis-a-vis 01/08/2014. It is the further case of the petitioners that the petitioners, in accordance with the aforestated Government Resolutions, have renewed the leases and accordingly paid the lease amount which was fixed by virtue of the aforestated Government Resolutions. The grievance of the petitioners is in relation to the Government Resolution dated 23/12/2015 pursuant to which the previous Government Resolutions those are superseded. According to the petitioners the effect of the Government Resolution dated 23/12/2015, is that it creates further classification amongst the leaseholders, which is unified class in itself, into those who have renewed lease and those who have not renewed their respective lease. Further contention of the petitioners is that certain concessions are conferred upon the holders of Nazul lease whose renewal is awaited. Granting latitude to those whose renewals are awaited in order to get the renewal done and even the fee charged for such renewal is also reduced substantially, as against those who have regularly renewed their leases like the petitioners. In the aforestated backdrop, the contention put forth by the petitioners is that the Government Resolution which is under challenge, creates a class within class, resulting into discrimination between similarly situated Nazul leaseholders as per Clause (I) (5) of the said Government Resolution. It is also submitted that latitude in favour of lease holders, those who have not renewed the lease, would discourage the lease holders renewing their lease regularly. As such, the question is about the sustainability of the same. In the wake of the same, the petitioners have put forth following prayers:

“(i) Hold and declare that Clauses (I) (1) & (5) of Government Resolution dated 23/12/2015 are unconstitutional being discriminatory, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 & 19 (1) (G) of Constitution of India.

(ii) Be further pleased to direct the respondent no.3 to modify its orders passed in March & April, 2013 by charging rent as per Government Resolution dated 23-12-2015 w.e.f. 1-4-2008 and be further pleased to direct Respondents to refund the excess Nazul rent paid by the Petitioners as per orders passed in March and April, 2013.”

3. In order to substantiate the said contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed heavy reliance on the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Vikram Cement and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (2015) 11 Supreme Court Cases 708, more particularly paragraphs 1 to 7, 10 and 11 in the forestated ju