Bombay High Court
Head Master,Neil City High School ... vs Nagpur Improvement Trust & ... on 22 March, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1 WP356-03 & 978-99
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No.356 of 2003
C.P. and Berar Education Society,
Mahal, Nagpur, through its Secretary. ... ... Petitioner
-Versus.-
1. Nagpur Improvement Trust,
through its Chairman, Civil Lines,
Nagpur.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai. ... ... Respondents.
WITH
Writ Petition No.978 of 1999
1. The Head Master, Neil City High School,
( D.D. Nagar Vidyalaya), Mahal, Nagpur
Shri Ashok s/o Jaikrishna Deshpande,
aged about 53 years, r/o Vakilpeth,
Umred road, Nagpur.
2. Sonashree d/o Shrikant Pohare,
Aged about 12 years, Occu. Student,
R/o Anand Palace, Umred Road,
Nagpur though natural guardian father
Shrikat Prabhakarrao Pohare ... ... Petitioners
-Versus.-
1. Nagpur Improvement Trust,
Nagpur.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
through the Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. ... ... Respondents.
::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:57:06 :::
2 WP356-03 & 978-99
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. M.G. Bhangde Senior counsel with Mr. R.M. Bhangde, counsel for petitioners.
Mr. R.O. Chhabara, counsel for respondent no.1.
Mrs. Hiwase, AGP for respondent no. 2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATE : 22nd March, 2016.
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT ( Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.)
Heard learned senior advocate Mr. M.G. Bhandge with Mr. R.M.
Bhangde. Advocate Chhabara for respondent no.1. Learned AGP has
appeared for respondent no.2. Shri Chhabra relies on submissions filed in WP
No.978/1999 and sought time to bring on record further developments, if
any.
2. In the backdrop of order of this court dated 4.12.2003 and the
later order dated 30.3.2015 we have proceeded to hear the matter. Those
orders are reproduced below -
Order dated 4.12.2003.
" Mr. S.K. Misha learned counsel appearing for
the respondent no.1 makes a statement that if the matter
is kept after two weeks, probably the petition itself may
come to an end in view of the fact that the proposal to
construct commercial complex has now been abandoned
by the NIT.
S.O. after two weeks."
3 WP356-03 & 978-99
Order dated 30.3.2015
" Advocate Shri Tapadia holding for Shri V.V.
Bhangde, the learned counsel for the petitioner, states
that the matter is likely to be compromised.
In view of the aforesaid statement, stand over
to 13.4.2015."
3. Shri Bhangde points out that the lands becoming available in the
process of development were offered to total four schools on 21.8.1922 by
the Secretary of the then local body namely Municipal Committee for play
grounds. Accordingly, the lands were allowed to be used by schools as a play
ground and all petitioners before it started using their respective lands for
that purpose.
4. For the first time on 12.5.1959 a licence of these lands was
sanctioned by Secretary of Nagpur Improvement Trust i.e. present
respondent no.1. Present respondent no.1 is successor in office of Municipal
Committee, Nagpur. The annual licence fee was Rs.15/- and was to be given
from 1.4.1959. Thus, petitioners in both petitions continued to enjoy the
possession of play grounds in the backdrop of initial grant and then licence
mentioned supra.
5. On 25.2.1999 respondent no. 1 board decided to cancel the
allotment in favour of petitioners because of decision of State Government to
construct a sports complex on these lands. Respondent no.1, therefore,
4 WP356-03 & 978-99
resolved to cancel the licence. On 5.3.1999 in terms of this resolution a
communication cancelling licence came to be issued.
6 . Advocate Bhangde submits that it is in this background that the
petitioners are constrained to approach this court. This court has protected
their possession.
7. He further points out that in the meanwhile the reservation for
sport complex came to be shifted to another place in the city i.e. mouza
Jaripatka and therefore the lands of petitioners were not required for
construction of sport complex. He invites attention to a notification dated
10.9.2001 published in government gazette of 21.9.2001 to urge that
reservation against E.P. No. 86, sheet no. 19 was deleted and therefore site
was available for old user. According to him, therefore, the play ground
licenced to both the petitioners continued for same user.
8. Our attention has been invited to affidavit placed on record on
11.1.2016. The respondent no.1 has offered on 1.8.2015 their respective
play grounds on annual licence temporarily for a period of 15 years. The
respective petitioners on 6.10.2015 sought details of the arrangement and
terms and conditions of the grant. They also sought licence for period of 90
years. On 23.11.2015 respondent no. 1 while rejecting request for grant of
licence for 90 years, stated that annual licence fee shall be Rs.100/- and
5 WP356-03 & 978-99
petitioners would be required to vacate and surrender the land in favour of
Nagpur Improvement Trust whenever Nagpur Improvement Trust claims it.
9. In this situation, Advocate Bhangde submits that the resolution for
cancellation of licence and for demanding possession of land on 5.3.1999 is
no longer available and hence the said resolution needs to be quashed and
set aside. He further submits that parties can work out further arrangement
in accordance with law in the matter.
10. Learned AGP appearing for respondent no.2 submits that it is
basically a dispute between respondent no.1 and petitioners.
11. In the backdrop of the orders looked into by us and reproduced
supra, it is clear that respondent no.1 does not need the lands. The resolution
which is passed on 25.2.1999 and consequential notice of cancellation dated
5.3.1999 therefore does not survive. The respondent no.1 itself has offered
these lands to petitioners on temporary annual licence for a period of 15
years.
12. In this situation, the petitioners and respondent no.1 can
negotiate and work out the terms and conditions of grant as per law.
However, the notice of cancellation cannot survive. Accordingly, notice
dated 5.3.1999 along with board resolution dated 25.2.1999 is quashed and
set aside.
6 WP356-03 & 978-99
Writ petition is thus partly allowed. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Hirekhan
