Bombay High Court
Amar Sewa Mandal Nagpur Thr. ... vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 29 April, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
wp1929.05 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1929 OF 2015
Amar Sewa Mandal, Nagpur
through its Secretary, having
office at Kamala Nehru College,
Sakkardara Chowk, Nagpur. ... PETITIONER
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
2. Nagpur Improvement Trust,
through its Chairman, Sadar,
Nagpur.
3. The Executive Officer,
Nagpur Improvement Trust,
Sadar, Nagpur. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri M.N. Hiwase, AGP for respondent No. 1.
.....
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
APRIL 29, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Heard Shri Kulkarni, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mrs. Hiwase, learned AGP for respondent No. 1.
2. The petitioner - management approached this
Court, questioning the direction dated 19.03.2015 issued by
Respondent No. 2 - Nagpur Improvement Trust and
Respondent No. 3 (its Executive Officer), whereby it was
informed that lease of Public Utility Plot No. CD/2, area
2138.85 sq. mtrs. in Nandanvan Layout, Nagpur, in its favour
was cancelled. The petitioner was called upon to remove all its
belongings and structure from plot within 30 days so as to
enable Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to take its possession.
3. On 18.07.2005, this Court has passed the following
order in the matter :
"The petitioner being an educational trust
running various institutions. In the petition they
have filed an undertaking saying that the premises
will be used exclusively for Law College and Institute
of Computer Technology and Computer Management.
In paragraph No. 2 of the Undertaking they have set
out that till date they have received a sum of
Rs.3,53,656/-. They are willing to refund the entire
amount. On behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 the
learned counsel points out that the order had to be
passed considering the Public Interest Litigation and
inquiry conducted pursuant to the directions of this
Court.
Considering the controversy involved though
the land was allotted for educational institution, the
letter of allotment given to the petitioners was for
public utilities. According to the learned counsel for
the petitioners public utilities would include marriage
hall. However, they have filed an undertaking that
hereinafter the premises will only be used for Law
College and for Computer Institute as set out in the
undertaking.
Considering the above and as the petitioner is
already running educational institutions, we think
that the matter requires consideration.
In the light of that Rule.
On the petitioner's depositing with Respondent
Nos. 2 and 3 a sum of Rs.3,53,656, within two weeks
from today, there will be interim relief in terms of
prayer clause (ii).
Respondents waive service."
4. Shri Kulkarni, learned counsel, submits that
accordingly an amount of Rs.3,53,656/- has been deposited by
the petitioner with Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and the subject land
is being used only for imparting education to students. A Law
College and an institute imparting education in Computer
Technology are being run on the buildings constructed on said
plot. He states that an undertaking has been filed before this
Court on 20.04.2005 pointing out that because of other use of
structure, the petitioner had received an amount of
Rs.3,53,656/- as rent from 2002-03 onwards and out of it, an
amount of Rs.3,20,830/- was spent but then after orders of this
Court, entire amount of Rs.3,53,656/- has been deposited with
Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and the petitioner does not claims it
back. He submits that the other use of buildings and property
has since then been discontinued and as such, the petition
needs to be allowed by making Rule absolute in terms of
interim order.
5. Mrs. Hiwase, learned AGP appearing for
Respondent No. 1 submits that the dispute is between
petitioner on one hand and Respondent No. 2 on the other
hand. She has also invited our attention to the fact that
Respondent No. 2 has filed preliminary submissions on
22.06.2005.
6. The submissions are before passing of interim
orders reproduced supra. On that day this Court issued Rule in
the matter and in response to Rule, no return/ affidavit has
been filed by Respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
7. Thus, it appears that the plot and buildings thereon
are being used exclusively for educational purposes by the
petitioner and for no other purpose. The condition of returning
the amount imposed by this Court on 18.07.2005 is stated to be
fulfilled.
8. The Nagpur Improvement Trust has not filed any
affidavit before this Court urging that any violation continues
or has taken place after 18.07.2005. It has also not pointed out
that the amount of Rs.3,53,656/- is not received by it.
9. In this situation, it will not be proper to disturb the
on going educational activities going on, on the subject land.
We, therefore, quash and set aside the impugned
communication dated 19.03.2005. However, Respondent Nos.
2 & 3 are at liberty to take necessary steps in accordance with
law, if any instance of violation is noticed by them.
10. With this liberty, we partly allow this writ petition
and dispose it of. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall
be no order as to costs.ig
JUDGE JUDGE
******
*GS.
