Bombay High Court
Amrutlal S/O Subramaniam ... vs Nagpur Improvement Trust, ... on 14 June, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
1406WP5222.13-Judgment 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5222 OF 2013
PETITIONERS :- 1) Amrutlal s/o Subramaniam Mandlekar, Aged
about 53 years, Occupation - Service,
2) Ku.Anita d/o Subramaniam Mandlekar, Aged
about 36 years, Occupation - Nil,
3) Ku.Vandana d/o Subramaniam Mandlekar,
Aged about 30 years, Occupation - Nil,
4) Ku.Ranjana d/o Subramaniam Mandlekar,
Aged about 19 years, Occupation - Nil,
Nos.1 to 4 R/o Plot No.63, Police Line
Takali, Kamgar Nagar, Nagpur.
5) Sou.Shila w/o Deepak Hatkar, Aged about
54 years, Occupation - Household, R/o
Raskar Nagar, Near Samata High School,
Dhule, Tahsil and District Dhule.
6) Sau. Rekha w/o Mani Pilley, Aged about 32
years, Occupation - Household, R/o Near
Ayappa Mandir, Ring Road Mankapur,
Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENT :- Nagpur Improvement Trust, through its
Chairman, Civil Lines, Sadar, Nagpur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.S.P.Kshirsagar, counsel for the petitioners.
Mr.G.A.Kunte, counsel for the respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
ARUN D. UPADHYE
, JJ.
DATED : 14.06.2017
1406WP5222.13-Judgment 2/5
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioners challenge the order of
the Nagpur Improvement Trust dated 07/05/2012, rejecting the
application of the petitioners for regularization of the plot under the
Maharashtra Gunthewari Developments (Regulation, Upgradation and
Control) Act, 2001 on the ground that the petitioners had not submitted
the sale deed and the documents pertaining to their possession.
Shri Kshirsagar, the learned counsel for the petitioners,
submitted by referring to the judgment and decree of the civil court in
Regular Civil Suit No.263 of 2009 to which the Nagpur Improvement
Trust was also a party, that Savitabai w/o Subramaniam Mandlekar, the
wife of the petitioner No.1 and the mother of petitioner Nos.2 to 6 was
declared by the civil court to be in lawful possession of the suit property
within the meaning of section 4(2) of the Maharashtra Gunthewari
Developments (Regulation, Upgradation and Control) Act, 2001. It is
submitted that since a declaration is made by the civil court in respect
of the possession of the petitioners over the plot in question, the
respondent-Nagpur Improvement Trust was not justified in rejecting the
application of the petitioners, specially when the Nagpur Improvement
Trust was a party to the proceedings filed by Savitabai w/o
1406WP5222.13-Judgment 3/5
Subramaniam Mandlekar in the suit for declaration. It is submitted that
it is held by this court in the judgment, reported in 2006 (5) Mh.L.J.
573 (Sarojini w/o Matisao Sarodaya and others v. State of
Maharashtra and others) that even a person in lawful possession of
the plot would be entitled for regularization of his plot under the
Gunthewari Act. It is submitted that though the development charges
have been paid by the petitioners to the Nagpur Improvement Trust, the
application of the petitioners is not decided on merits and is rejected
wrongfully.
Shri Kunte, the learned counsel for the respondent-Nagpur
Improvement Trust, submitted that in the application filed by the
petitioners, the petitioners have sought the regularization of plot No.63
in khasra No.44, though the judgment of the civil court pertains to plot
No.63 in khasra No.14. It is submitted that a correction is not made by
the petitioners in the application.
We do not find any propriety in the action on the part of
the Nagpur Improvement Trust in rejecting the application of the
petitioners on the ground that the petitioners had failed to submit the
documents pertaining to their possession and the sale deed. In view of
the declaration granted by the trial court in the civil suit that the
1406WP5222.13-Judgment 4/5
petitioners are in lawful possession of the property within the meaning
of the provisions of section 4(2)(a) of the Act of 2001 to which the
Nagpur Improvement Trust was a party, the Nagpur Improvement Trust
should not have asked for any more documents pertaining to the lawful
possession of the petitioners. Though it is stated by the learned counsel
for the Nagpur Improvement Trust in this court that the petitioners have
wrongly mentioned the khasra number in the application, we do not
find from the impugned order that the application is rejected on that
ground. We find on a reading of para-8 of the judgment of the civil
court that Savitabai w/o Subramaniam Mandlekar, the wife of the
petitioner No.1 and the mother of petitioner Nos.2 to 6 was in
possession of the property on the basis of the agreement of sale dated
17/10/1976. Since a decree is passed by the civil court in favour of
Savitabai w/o Subramaniam Mandlekar declaring that she is in lawful
possession of the property in pursuance of the agreement of sale, dated
17/10/1976, to which the Nagpur Improvement Trust was a party, the
Nagpur Improvement Trust cannot be permitted to seek more
documents from the petitioners in regard to their possession over the
suit property. Since a decree is passed in favour of the wife of the
petitioner No.1 and the mother of the petitioner Nos.2 to 6, the said
decree would be binding on the respondent-Nagpur Improvement Trust,
so far as the petitioners are concerned.
1406WP5222.13-Judgment 5/5
In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The
impugned order is quashed and set aside. We hereby direct the Nagpur
Improvement Trust to decide the application of the petitioners for
regularization of the plot within two months. Rule is made absolute in
the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
