Bombay High Court
Shri Shivkumar S/O Ruplalji ... vs The Chairman, Nagpur Improvement ... on 20 July, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
WP 2228/15 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2228/2015
Shri Shivkumar s/o Ruplalji Jaiswal,
Aged about 70 years, Occ. : Business,
R/o. 10, Sarju Town, Near Jagat Public School,
Wathoda, Nagpur. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. The Chairman,
Nagpur Improvement Trust,
Station Road, Sadar, Nagpur.
2. Shri Manoj s/o. Ashokrao Mirashe,
Aged about 39 years,
R/o. Circle No.8/13, Central Avenue, Nagpur.
3. Shri Harihar s/o. Dattatraya Bhakay,
Aged about 75 years, Occ. : Retired.
4. Shri Wasudeo s/o. Dattatraya Bhakay,
Aged about 64 years, Occ. Retired.
3 & 4 above R/o. Circle No.8/13,
Central Avenue, Section II-A, Nagpur.
5. Shri Mukund s/o. Marotrao Darlinge,
Aged about 43 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Near Renuka Mata Mandir,
Central Avenue, Section II-B, Nagpur. RESPONDENTS
Shri Avinash Gharote, counsel for the petitioner.
Mrs. B.H. Dangre, counsel for the respondent no.1.
Shri S.M. Puranik, counsel for the respondent no.2.
CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A.NAIK AND
MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 20 TH JULY, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT.VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard
finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel
for the parties.
WP 2228/15 2 Judgment
By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the
Chairman, Nagpur Improvement Trust, Nagpur, dated 07.04.2014.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.2 was
the owner of land admeasuring 1096 square feet. The Nagpur
Improvement Trust acquired the land under the provisions of the
Nagpur Improvement Trust Act and an award was passed on 12.09.1961.
After the award was passed, the Nagpur Improvement Trust again
entered into an agreement with the respondent no.2, thereby
abandoning the acquisition of 554 square feet of land and retaining
the acquisition to the extent of 552 square feet. After the said
agreement was executed between the Nagpur Improvement Trust
and the respondent no.2, an agreement was executed between the
Nagpur Improvement Trust and the petitioner herein on 06.09.1963
whereby the Nagpur Improvement Trust agreed to grant 141 square
feet of said land to the petitioner so that the plot of the petitioner
could be enlarged, as it is an extremely small plot of land. A similar
agreement was executed by the Nagpur Improvement Trust with the
respondent nos.4 and 5 whereby, the Nagpur Improvement Trust
decided to allot a part of the plot of land that was acquired from
the respondent no.2. The matter in respect of the rival claims made by
the respondent no.2 and the respondent nos.4 and 5 came up for
WP 2228/15 3 Judgment
consideration before the Chairman, Nagpur Improvement Trust. The
Chairman, Nagpur Improvement Trust, after hearing the respondent
no.2 and the respondent nos.4 and 5, held that none of them
were entitled to the allotment of the land. Since the decision of the
Nagpur Improvement Trust has affected the petitioner with whom
the Nagpur Improvement Trust had entered into an agreement for
allotment of 141 square feet of land, the petitioner has approached this
Court, challenging the order of the Chairman, Nagpur Improvement
Trust, dated 07.04.2014.
3. Shri Gharote, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
inter alia, submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set
aside as the petitioner was not heard by the Chairman, Nagpur
Improvement Trust before passing the impugned order. It is stated
that since the order of the Chairman, Nagpur Improvement Trust
has prejudicially affected the right of the petitioner to the allotment
of 141 square feet of land, it was necessary for the Nagpur
Improvement Trust to have heard the petitioner. It is stated that
though the case of the respondent nos.4 and 5 was similarly placed
like that of the petitioner, the petitioner was not heard and the
respondent nos.4 and 5 were heard.
WP 2228/15 4 Judgment
4. Mrs. Dangre, the learned counsel for the Nagpur
Improvement Trust, fairly states on instructions that the petitioner was
not heard before the impugned order was passed by the Chairman,
Nagpur Improvement Trust on 07.04.2014. It is stated that if this Court
so directs, the Chairman of the Nagpur Improvement Trust would hear
the petitioner.
5.
Since we find that the petitioner ought to have been
heard in the circumstances of the case by the Chairman, Nagpur
Improvement Trust before passing the impugned order, it would be
necessary to quash and set aside the impugned order and direct the
Chairman, Nagpur Improvement Trust to re-decide the question of
allotment after hearing the petitioner. Since the impugned order is
liable to be set aside, it is needless to mention that the respondent
no.2 as well as the respondent nos.4 and 5 should also be heard
by the Chairman, Nagpur Improvement Trust again, as the order is set
aside and the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner may have
an effect or bearing on the ultimate decision that could be rendered by
the Chairman, Nagpur Improvement Trust, on the respective claims of
the parties.
WP 2228/15 5 Judgment
6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is
partly allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The
Chairman, Nagpur Improvement Trust is directed to re-decide the
matter after hearing the petitioner, the respondent no.2 and the
respondent nos.4 and 5. Since a writ petition filed by the respondent
no.2, seeking a declaration that he is still the absolute owner of the
entire plot of land admeasuring 1096 square feet is pending, the
Chairman, Nagpur Improvement Trust may decide the matter after this
Court decides the writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.1260 of 2014,
filed by the respondent no.2.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
APTE
WP 2228/15 6 Judgment
CERTIFICATE
I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true
and correct copy of original signed Judgment/Order.
Uploaded by: Rohit D. Apte. Uploaded on : 22.07.2016.
