Bombay High Court
Archana And Katrina Gorakshan ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 27 April, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
1 wp4364.13.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.4364 OF 2013
Archana & Katrina Gorakshan Trust
and Animal Rehabilitation Home,
through its President Shri Ashish
s/o. Vasant Pradhan, aged about
39 years, r/o. 140, Perfect Society,
Pannase Layout, Nagpur. ........ PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Principal Secretary,
Marketing Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Secretary,
State of Maharashtra,
Forest & Revenue Department,
World Trade Centre,
Cafe Parade Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
3. The District Collector,
Nagpur.
4. Maharashtra State Agriculture
Marketing Board, R-7,
Gul Tekdi Market Yard,
Pune-411003. ........ RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 23:59:50 :::
2 wp4364.13.odt
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr.M.A.Vishwarupe, Adv. for the petitioner.
Mrs.Bharti Dangre, G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3.
Mr.Anand Parchure, Adv. for respondent no.4.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CORAM : B. R. GAVAI &
MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 27.4.2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B. R. Gavai, J) :
1.
Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties.
2. Vide order dt.16.4.2016, the present Writ Petition was directed
to be listed along with P.I.L. No.57 of 2016, which has been filed by the
High Court Bar Association at Nagpur pointing out various difficulties in
establishment of National Law University at Nagpur.
3. In the said P.I.L., a notice was issued on 7.4.2016 to the State
Government. In response to the said notice issued by this Court, an
affidavit has been filed by Mr.Anoop Kumar, Divisional Commissioner,
Nagput. When the said petition was heard on 16.4.2016, it was noticed
that one of the issues therein was pertaining to allotment of land for the
National Law University. It was brought to our notice that, at present, the
3 wp4364.13.odt
land for the National Law University is allotted at mouza Kaldongri. It was,
however, noticed that the said land was not found suitable and as such,
the State has proposed to allot the land admeasuring 75 acres at mouza
Waranga. In the said affidavit, it is also stated that, at present, the land at
mouza Waranga admeasuring about 100 acres is allotted to the
Maharashtra State Agricultural Market Board; however, it is proposed that
the said land at mouza Waranga would be allotted to the National Law
University and Kavi Kulguru Kalidas Sanskrit University in the ratio of 75
acres : 25 acres and the land at Kaldongri would be allotted to respondent
no.4 herein.
4. It is, however, stated in the said affidavit that, on account of
interim orders passed in present Writ Petition No.4364 of 2013, there is
impediment in materialising the aforesaid proposal. As such, vide order
dt.16.4.2016, P.I.L. No. 57 of 2016 was directed to be listed along with the
present petition.
5. When the matter was listed before this Court on 21.4.2016, since
the parties were not ready for final hearing of the matter, by consent of
the learned Counsel for the parties, the present petition was directed to be
kept for final hearing today at Serial No.1. Accordingly, the petition is
4 wp4364.13.odt
listed before this Court today.
6. We have heard Mr.M.A.Vishwarupe, learned Counsel for the
petitioner. The learned Counsel submits that allotment of land in favour of
respondent no.4 is in breach of Rules 31 and 41 of the Maharashtra Land
Revenue (Disposal of Government Lands) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter
referred to as "the said Rules"). He submits that Rule 31 of the said Rules
specifically provides that if the land is to be utilized for Industrial and
commercial purpose, it cannot be done unless the allotment of land is by
public auction or by inviting public tenders. The learned Counsel further
submits that there is also violation of Rule 41 of the said Rules.
7. It is further contended by Mr.M.A.Vishwarupe, learned Counsel that
the land in question is reserved for grazing and as such, it was more
suitable for the purposes for which the petitioner/trust is established and
as such, the State Government ought to have allotted the said land to the
petitioner herein accepting the application made by it.
We find that the present petition is totally misconceived in law.
8. If the contention of the petitioner is to be accepted that - since
5 wp4364.13.odt
the petitioner's application is prior in point of time and that since the
subordinate Revenue Officers have recommended the same, the land
ought to have been allotted to the petitioner, instead of respondent no.4;
then it will lead to a situation where any one claiming his application to be
prior in time, would expect the Government to allot the land irrespective
of finding out as to whether any public purpose is served by such
allotment or not.
8.
Insofar as the contention of the petitioner that the land is
reserved for grazing is concerned, we find that the said contention is also
without substance. We have perused the original 7/12 extracts. Perusal of
same would reveal that the land in question was originally allotted to one
Vidharbha Shetkari Sakhar Karkhana on 20th September, 1989. However,
noticing that the said Karkhana had done nothing, in the year 2007, the
land was restored back to the Government. Perusal of the 7/12 extracts
would further reveal that, since the land was vacant land, it was permitted
to be used for the purpose of grazing. The petitioner has not placed any
document on record to show that any 'nistar rights' were reserved in the
land in question.
9. Apart from that, the petition is liable to be dismissed on the
6 wp4364.13.odt
ground of locus standi. It is not the case of the petitioner that the
President or any Office bearer of the petitioner/trust is resident of either
village Waranga or any of the villages in the neighbourhood of the land in
question. It is also not the case of the petitioner that it is having number of
cattles which are regularly using the land in question for grazing. The
petitioner appears to be a trust established at Nagpur.
10. We do not propose to observe anything about the credentials of
the petitioner. The petitioner may have a noble object of protecting the
animals like monkeys, horses, rabbits etc. and rehabilitating them and to
promote animal welfare. However, that does not give right to the
petitioner to claim the land of the State Government as a matter of right.
As observed hereinabove, the petitioner has no concern with grazing, if
any, by the animals on the land in question. In that view of the matter, we
find that the petitioner, as a matter of fact, does not have any locus to
challenge allotment of the said land in favour of respondent no.4.
11. Insofar as the contention with regard to violation of Rule 31 of
the said Rules is concerned, perusal of the said Rule would show that the
said Rule is applicable only when allotment of land is for industrial and
commercial purpose. Per contra, if we peruse Rule 6 of the said rules, it
7 wp4364.13.odt
will be clear that, if allotment of land is for construction of schools or
colleges, hospitals, dispensaries and other public works, then the State
Government has power to allot the land free of occupancy price and free
of revenue, whether in perpetuity or for a term, for any of the purposes
specified therein.
12. As such, since the allotment of land is for public purpose, Rule
31 would not be applicable in the facts of the present case.
13. It is the contention of the learned Counsel that Rule 41 of the
said Rules prohibits the land to be used for a particular purpose from
being used for any other purpose and it also provides for payment of non-
agricultural assessment etc. However, in the present case, since, by an
interim order passed by this Court, entire project is fore-stalled at the
beginning, we are unable to appreciate as to how it can be said that the
provisions of Rule 41 have been violated. In that view of the matter, we
find that the petition is without substance.
14. At this stage, Mr.Anand Parchure, learned Counsel for
respondent no.4 submits that, since the Government is now considering
allotment of land, which was earlier allotted to it, to the National Law
8 wp4364.13.odt
University and Kavi Kulguru Kalidas Sanskrit University and since the land
at Kaldongri, which is proposed to be allotted to respondent no.4, is not
suitable, the Court may issue necessary directions to the State Government
for allotment of suitable land.
15. We find that the State Government is competent enough to
decide as to which projects are required to be considered on priority basis
for allotment of lands. Any suggestion in that regard would amount to
encroaching upon the jurisdiction of the Executive.
16. It is, therefore, for the State Government to decide as to which
lands are to be allotted and for what purposes. Nodoubt, the Divisional
Commissioner in the affidavit filed in P.I.L. No. 57 of 2016 has stated that
it is proposed that the land at mouza Waranga be alloted for National Law
University and Kavi Kulguru Kalidas Sanskrit University and in turn, the
land at mouza Kaldongri be allotted for the project of respondent no.4.
17. We are sure that the recommendations of the Divisional
Commissioner will have a due weightage before the State Government.
The State Government can always consider allotment of land at Kaldongri
to respondent no.4 and if it is not suitable, some other land can be allotted
9 wp4364.13.odt
for the project to be undertaken by respondent no.4, if the State
Government is of the opinion that the project to be implemented by
respondent no.4 is still in the public interest.
With the above observations and directions, the petition is
disposed of.
No order as to costs.
ig JUDGE JUDGE
jaiswal
