Sunil Shamraoji Shinde vs State Of Maharashtra And 3 Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 720 Bom

 Judgment                                        1                                  wp55.04.odt




              
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


                      WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 55  OF 2004


 Sunil Shamraoji Shinde, 
 Aged 60 years, 
 Occupation : Agriculturist, 
 R/o. Sawargaon, Tah. & Distt. Nagpur. 

                                                                   ....  PETITIONER.

                                 //  VERSUS //

 1. The State of Maharashtra,
    through Urban Development Department, 
    Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 

 2. Mr. Gautam,
    Deputy Collector & Competent Authority
    (Urban Land Ceiling Act), Civil Lines, Nagpur. 

 3. Chief Officer,
    Nagpur Housing Area Development Board, 
    MLA Hostel, Civil Lines Nagpur. 

 4. Shri Satish Chaturvedi,
    Guardian Minister and President of Lokmanya
    Tilak Jan Kalyan Shikshan Sanstha, 
    Ring Road, Nagpur. 

      4-A. Lokmanya Tilak Kalnay Shikshan Sanstha,
           through its Executive Officer, Ring Road, 
           Nagpur. 

 5. District Allotment Committee
    (Under Urban Land Ceiling Act),
    through its Chairman/ Collector, 
    Nagpur. 
                                                               .... RESPONDENTS
                                                                             . 



::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017                         ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2017 01:07:34 :::
  Judgment                                            2                                  wp55.04.odt




 ___________________________________________________________________
 Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate for the Petitioner. 
 Ms Bharti Dangre,G.P. a/w Shri S.M.Uke, Addl.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
 Shri Sunil Manohar, Sr.Adv. a/b. Shri.A.A.Naik, Adv. for Resp. No.4.
 Sarvashree   P.B.Patil,   B.G.Kulkarni,   D.V.Chauhan,   J.S.Zadokar,   Y.B.Phadnis, 
 A.V.Palshikar, S.K.Keole, B.C.Paul, R.O. Chhabra, A.M. Joshi, M.P. Janbandhu, 
 A.M.   Sudame,   P.S.   Sahare,   A.S.   Kilor,   R.V.   Gaikwad   and   P.C.   Marpakwar, 
 Advocates for societies/ allottees / interveners. 
 ___________________________________________________________________

                             CORAM : PRASANNA B.VARALE AND Z.A.HAQ, JJ.

Date of Reserving the Judgment : 08/03/2017. Date of Pronouncing the Judgment: 15/03/2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (P.C.):

1. Heard.

2. The petitioner had filed this petition challenging the

allotment of land admeasuring 51700 square meters (field Survey No.

117 and 119) situated at Waddhamna, Tahsil and District : Nagpur in

faovur of the respondent No.4-A-society- Lokmanya Tilak Jankalyan

Shikshan Sanstha. The land allotted in favour of the respondent No.4-

A-society was allotted by the State Government under Section 23 of the

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to

as "Ceiling At, 1976"). According to the petitioner, land admeasuring

63435.28 square meters was allotted to Nagpur Housing Area

Development Board in 1989 and the Housing Board was processing the

scheme and plans for construction of Low Income Group houses and

Judgment 3 wp55.04.odt

out of this land 51700 square meters of land came to be allotted

illegally to the respondent No.4-A society on 31st December, 2003. The

petitioner was Chairman of the Nagpur Housing Area Development

Board at the relevant time. The petitioner filed this petition as citizen of

Nagpur.

According to the petitioner, the land was allotted to the

respondent No.4-A society illegally because of the influence of the

respondent No.4 who claimed to be the President of the respondent

No.4-A society at the relevant time and was Guardian Minister of

Nagpur.

3. While the grievance of the petitioner was under

consideration of this Court, an order is passed on 22nd February, 2006

accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner to appoint

Enquiry Committee to scrutinize the allotments made by the competent

Authority under the Ceiling Act, 1976. The State Government was

called upon to file its reply on the point whether Enquiry Committee

should be appointed to scrutinize the allotments or not. By an order

dated 7th June, 2006, this Court appointed Shri Arun Bhatia, Retired

IAS Officer as One Man Committee to conduct enquiry in respect of the

Judgment 4 wp55.04.odt

subject matter of this writ petition and allotment of surplus land under

Section 23 of the Ceiling Act, 1976 to other individuals or institutions.

The State Government was directed to provide secretarial assistance to

One Member Committee. By the order passed on 27th July, 2006 the

order passed on 7th June, 2006 was modified and instead of Shri Arun

Bhatia, Shri R.K. Batta, Retired Judge of this Court was appointed as

One Man Committee to enquire into the matter as directed by the order

passed on 7th June, 2006.

It was submitted that valuable land in and around the city

of Nagpur admeasuring 37192242.56 square meters was subject matter

of proceedings under the Ceiling Act, 1976 and One Man Committee

conducted inquiry in respect of allotment of surplus land under the

Ceiling Act, 1976 in 99 cases.

The One Man Committee conducted the enquiry in respect

of the allotment of surplus land under the Ceiling Act, 1976 in 99 cases

and submitted its report.

4. The order passed on 11th October, 2007 records that One

Man Committee submitted its report on 9th October, 2007, pointing out

Judgment 5 wp55.04.odt

several irregularities and illegalities in the allotments. In the order

passed by this Court on 23rd September, 2008 it is recorded that the

Chief Secretary of the Government of Maharashtra had filed an affidavit

dated 16th September, 2008 stating that the State Government had

decided to initiate and conduct disciplinary proceedings against the

Additional Collectors/ Competent Authorities and other officers who

were found to be at fault by the One Man Committee for the illegal and

irregular allotments. The order passed by this Court on 18th December,

2009 records submission made by the learned Government Pleader that

the Sub-Committee of Cabinet headed by the Chief Minister was to

consider regarding the action to be taken as per the the report of the

One Man Committee. It further records that the Government Pleader

had submitted that the action for cancelling some of the allotments was

already taken. On 1st August, 2014, during the course of hearing it

transpired that the report submitted by the One Man Committee does

not contain the signature of member of the committee (Shri R.K.Batta,

Retired Judge).

Be that as it may, as the writ petition is considered as Public

Interest Litigation, we considered the report of One Man Committee for

assistance during the hearing and called upon the respective parties to

make the submissions.

Judgment 6 wp55.04.odt

5. Initially, Ms Bharti Dangre, learned Government Pleader

appeared for the State of Maharashtra, but subsequently Shri S.M.Uke,

Additional Government Pleader appeared for the State of Maharashtra.

After haring the learned Government Pleader/ Additional

Government Pleader, Shri Anand Parchure, advocate for the petitioner

and the advocates appearing for the different allottees, we find that the

following points arise for consideration :

i) Whether the vacant land deemed to have been acquired by

the State Government under the Urban Land (Ceiling and

Regulation) Act, 1976 or under any other law is required to

be allotted as per Section 23(1) of the Ceiling Act, 1976 for

any purpose relating to or in connection with any industry

or for providing residential accommodation of such type as

may be approved by the State Government to the

employees of any industry ?

OR

Whether the land can be allotted as per Section 23(4) of

the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 for any

other purpose which sub-serves common good?

  Judgment                                            7                                  wp55.04.odt




            ii)     Whether the lands deemed to have been acquired by the 

                  State   Government   under   the     Urban   Land   (Ceiling   and 

Regulation) Act, 1976 or under any other law can be

allotted at the absolute discretion of the State

Government/ Competent Authority without issuing any

public notice calling applications from the interested

persons or without auction ?

6. The advocate for the petitioner has submitted that as per

sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Ceiling Act, 1976, the vacant land

can be allotted for any purpose relating to or in connection with the

industry or for providing residential accommodation or such type as

may be approved by the State Government to the employees of any

industry and considering the explanation of the term "industry" as

given in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Ceiling Act,

1976, the allotment of land can be for any purpose relating to or in

connection with any business, profession, trade, undertaking or

manufacture. It is submitted that the allotment can be made for the

above purposes only if it sub-serves the common good as laid down by

sub-section (4) of Section 23 of the Ceiling Act, 1976. It is submitted

that only for a couple of cases of allotments are for the purposes

covered by the provisions of Section 23 of the Ceiling Act, 1976. The

Judgment 8 wp55.04.odt

advocate for the petitioner has argued that while allotting the land for

the purpose as per Section 23(1) of the Ceiling Act, 1976, the State

Government has to issue public notice so that all the persons interested

can apply for allotment of the land in question. It is argued that in all

the cases which are being scrutinized, the allotments are made without

issuing any public notice surreptitiously. The learned advocate has

referred to the observations in the report of the One Man Committee

and has submitted that the competent authority has acted arbitrarily

and the lands are allotted to the chosen persons without inviting the

applications from all the interested persons and without following any

procedure. It is argued that the allottees have been hand in gloves with

the competent Authority and have got the lands in question illegally. It

is prayed that all the allotments which are under scrutiny be cancelled.

Reliance is placed on the judgment given in the case of ITC Ltd. v. State

of U.P., reported in 2011(7) SCC 493.

It is submitted that some of the allotments are perse illegal

as the allotments were made before possession was taken by the State

Government by issuing notice as per Section 10(5) of the Ceiling Act,

1976 .

Judgment 9 wp55.04.odt

7. Various submissions are made by the advocates

representing the allottees. Shri R.V. Gaikwad, advocate has produced

guidelines issued under Section 23 of the Ceiling Act, 1976, issued by

the State Government on 20/02/1984 on the basis of the guidelines

issued by the Government of India on 14/01/1977 vide Circular No.

1/244/76-UCU.

8. Shri A.A. Naik, advocate has submitted that the allotment

of land in favour of the society registered under the provisions of the

Societies Registration Act, 1860 and / or Maharashtra Public Trusts Act,

1950 for running a school is permissible as per sub-section (4) of

Section 23 of the Ceiling Act, 1976 as running of a school sub-serves

the common good.

The judgment given in the case of Bhim Singhji v. Union of

India, reported in AIR 1981 SC 234 is referred to substantiate the

argument that the disposal of the land under the Ceiling Act, 1976 has

to be for sub-serving the common good. Paragraph 17 of this judgment

penned by Shri Krishna Iyer, J is referred to support the argument that

common good is the guiding factor and a Medical Clinic, Legal Aid

Bureau, Engineering Consultant's Office, Private Ambulance Garage,

Judgment 10 wp55.04.odt

Pharmacist's Shop may be public utilities. In paragraph 20 of this

judgment it is recorded that the crude drafting of Section 23(4) of the

Ceiling Act, 1976 by the unwarranted words "subject to" will not

whittle down the power and the obligation to distribute vacant land to

serve the object of Article 39(b) and (c) of the Constitution of India.

Paragraphs 20 and 25 of the judgment given in the case of

T.M.A.Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2002) 8 SCC

481 is relied upon to submit that it may be doubtful whether

"education" is a profession or not, but it does not appear that

"education" will fall within the meaning of the expression "occupation".

It is submitted that as per definition of "occupation" and "profession" as

per Black's Law Dictionary both these terms are similar / overlapping

and therefore, allotment of the land for running the school is

permissible as per explanation (b) below Section 23(1) of the Ceiling

Act, 1976.

9. Shri Shyam Dewani, advocate has submitted that imparting

of education is a sovereign function and the societies which are

granted permission by the State Government to run educational

institutions are discharging the sovereign function. It is submitted that

"education" is an industry and allotment of land under Section 23 of

Judgment 11 wp55.04.odt

the Ceiling Act, 1976 for running educational institution is permissible.

It is argued that the challenge to the allotment of land on the ground

that public notice was not given is of no consequence as the petitioner

has not been able to show that the State Government or the authorities

have not acted bonafide and reasonably. It is submitted that so long as

the action of the State Government and the authorities is bonafide and

reasonable, the Court will not interfere with the allotment on the

ground that advertisement was not given or tenders were not invited.

To support the submission, the judgment given in the case of Kasturi

Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of J and K, reported in (1980) 4 SCC 1

(specifically paragraph No.22) is relied.

Relying on the judgment given in the case of M.P. Oil

Extraction v. State of M.P., reported in (1997) 7 SCC 592 (paragraph

Nos. 45 and 46), it is submitted that unless it is pleaded and proved

that the allotment of the land without public notice or inviting tenders

is out of favouritism, the Court will not interfere with the decision of

the Government only on the ground that the allotment of the land is

without inviting tenders as the State Government may not always be

dictated by the only consideration of more revenue.

Judgment 12 wp55.04.odt

Relying on the judgment given in the case of Netai Bag v.

State of W.B., reported in (2000) 8 SCC 262 (paragraphs Nos. 19 and

20), it is submitted that the Government is entitled to make pragmatic

adjustment and policy decision which may be necessary or called for

under the prevailing circumstances and though the State cannot escape

its liability to show that its actions are fair, reasonable and in

accordance with law, still whenever the action of the State Government

is challenged, the initial burden of showing the prima-facie existence of

violation of the mandate of the Constitution lies upon the person

approaching the Court. It is submitted that in the present case the

petitioner has failed to discharge the initial burden and therefore, he

cannot be permitted to contend that the allotment is bad in law as it is

without public notice or inviting tenders.

10. Shri S.N. Bhattad advocate has submitted that the

allotment under Section 23 of the Ceiling Act, 1976 can be for the

houses of the weaker section. To counter the submission made on

behalf of the petitioner on the basis of Section 10(5) of the Ceiling Act,

1976, Shri S.N. Bhattad advocate has submitted that the documentary

evidence on record shows that the land in question vested in the State

Government and the question whether actual physical possession was

Judgment 13 wp55.04.odt

taken over is a disputed question of fact which cannot be determined in

the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The

learned advocate has relied on the judgment given in the case of State

of Assam v. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma, reported in (2015) 5 SCC 321 to

support this submission.

11. Shri Sunil Manohar, Senior Advocate has argued that the

allotment/ distribution of the land, as per the provisions of the Ceiling

Act, 1976 has to sub-serve the object of Article 39(b) and (c) of the

Constitution of India and if the allotment sub-serves the common good

then it cannot be faulted with. It is submitted that it is up to the State

Government to consider the purpose and object for which the allotment

is to be made and if the State Government is of the opinion that

allotment of land to "A" sub-serves the common good then the allotment

can be made in favour of "A" without inviting the applications, without

issuing public notice and without inviting tenders. It is submitted that

following some rules like the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of

Government Lands) Rules, 1971 or some norms will be sufficient and it

is not necessary that getting more revenue should always be the

consideration.

Judgment 14 wp55.04.odt

The judgment given in the case of Nitin Shankar Despande

Vs. Registrar General, High Court of Bombay, reported in 2013(1) ALL

MR 690 and the judgment given in the case of Lokprakashan Ltd. v.

Kanchanbhai Kanbhai Tadvi, reported in (2009) 9 SCC 43 are relied

upon to support the submission.

12. Shri M.G.Bhangde, learned Senior Advocate has submitted

that the allotment of land under the Ceiling Act, 1976 for running a

school/ education institution is permissible as "education" is an

industry. To support the submission, reliance is placed on the judgment

in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Bd v. Rajappa,

reported in (1978) 2 SCC 213. It is submitted that it is not necessary

that in every case of allotment of land or allocation of natural

resources, advertisement should be given or publicity should be made

or tenders should be invited. To support this submission, the learned

Senior Advocate has relied on the judgment given in the case of

Natural Resources Allocation, in Re, Special Reference No.1 of 2012,

reported in (2012) 10 SCC 1.

It is argued that while entertaining and considering the

challenges raised on behalf of the petitioner, this Court while exercising

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot

Judgment 15 wp55.04.odt

overlook the delay and latches and if the challenge is made after three

years after the allotment, the Court should not consider the challenge

and dismiss the petition. The judgment given in the case of Printers

(Mysore) Ltd. v. M.A.Rasheed, reported in (2004)4 SCC 460 is relied

upon to support this submission.

13. Shri S.M. Uke, learned Additional Government Pleader has

submitted that the State Government is well within its right to allot the

land under the Ceiling Act, 1976 if it is satisfied that the allotment of

the land to a particular individual / society for a particular purpose sub-

serves the common good and is in furtherance of the objective as per

Article 39(b) and (c) of the Constitution of India and unless it is proved

that the action of the State Government is not bonafide and / or

reasonable, judicial review or an enquiry in the matter by the Court will

not be permissible. It is argued that normally there is a presumption

that the action of the government is reasonable and in public interest

and if a party challenges its validity or legality, then the party raising

such challenge has to dislodge the presumption. To support the

argument, the learned Additional Government Pleader has relied on the

judgment given in the case of Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v.

Union of India, reported in (2009) 7 SCC 561. It is submitted that in

Judgment 16 wp55.04.odt

the present case legality and validity of the allotments is examined by

the High Power Committee and / or sub-committee of cabinet and the

allotments which are found to be improper have been cancelled and the

allotments which are found to be for common good have been

confirmed and the petitioner has not been able to point out that the

allotments which are confirmed are not made bonafide and not for the

purpose which sub-serves the common good and do not further the

objectives of Article 39 (b) and (c) of the Constitution of India.

The learned Additional Government Pleader has adopted

the arguments made by the other advocates that it is not necessary that

in every case the allotment should be after issuing public notice, giving

publicity and inviting tenders or by auction.

Other advocates representing the societies have made

submissions on the similar lines as recorded above, opposing the

petition.

14. After hearing the learned advocates appearing for various

parties and the learned Additional Government Pleader and examining

the observations of One Man Committee as culled out in the affidavit

filed by the Member Secretary, Urban Development Department,

Judgment 17 wp55.04.odt

Government of Maharashtra, we find that only allotment in favour of

the Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Nagpur for

construction of houses by the employees of the Maharashtra State

Electricity Board and the allotment in favour of Vidarbha Bottlers,

Nagpur can be considered as allotment under sub-section (1) of Section

23 of the Ceiling Act, 1976. All other allotments are either for running

a school or institution or for some community hall or for housing

purposes. Whether the allotment of lands for such purposes is

permissible will have to be examined on the touchstone of the

arguments made by the learned Advocates relying on the provisions of

Sub-Section (4) of Section 23 of the Ceiling Act, 1976, Article 39(b)

and (c) of the Constitution of India and the judgment given in the case

of Bhim Singhji(supra).

However, as we find that all the allotments are made

without issuing any public notice, without giving publicity, without

inviting tenders and without conducting auction, we will first examine

whether the allotments are legal and valid though they sufer this

irregularity/ illegality.

Judgment 18 wp55.04.odt

15. It is argued on behalf of the allottees and even on behalf of

the State Government that for allotting the lands under the Ceiling Act,

1976 it is not necessary that the public notice be issued, publicity be

given, tenders be invited and / or auction be conducted. It is argued

that if the Government is of the opinion that if the land is allotted to a

particular allottee, it will sub-serve common good, then the

Government will be within its power and authority to make the

allotment. There is considerable force in this submission but in the

present case the State Government and the allottees have not been able

to point out that the State Government has taken a conscious decision

before allotting the land to a particular allottee, that such allotment

will be beneficial to the area/ region and will sub-serve common good.

The facts on record show that the person seeking allotment of the land

approached the concerned authority, submitted an application, the

competent authority recommended the allotment and the allotment is

made. There is not a single case in which the State Government or the

concerned allottee has been able to show conscious decision by the

State Government that the allotment in favour of a particular person/

society/ institution is for valid and justifiable reasons. In this situation,

the submissions made on behalf of the State Government and the

allottees that the allotment of the land will not be illegal if it is made

Judgment 19 wp55.04.odt

without issuing public notice or giving publicity or inviting tenders or

conducting public auction cannot be accepted. In our view, the mandate

of Article 14 of the Constitution of India casts an obligation on the State

Government to resort to the above procedure so that everyone gets an

opportunity to put-forward his application and claim for the land which

is to be allotted by the State Government. Of course, there can be a

deviation from this Rule but for that there should be conscious decision

by the State Government demonstrating valid and justifiable reasons for

deviating from the normal rule. As we find that the lands are allotted

to the allottees without issuing public notice, without giving publicity,

without inviting tenders and without conducting the public auction, we

hold that the allotments (except the above referred two allotments) are

not legal and valid.

The allotment of land in favour of Maharashtra State

Electricity Board will fall under the explanation below sub-section (1)

of Section 23 of the Ceiling Act, 1976 and the allotment of land in

favour of Vidarbha Bottlers will also fall under Section 23(1) of the Act

of 1976 and this case is already scrutinised by this Court earlier in Writ

Petition No. 1090 of 2012.

Judgment 20 wp55.04.odt

16. In view of the above conclusions, we are not considering

the scope of Section 23 of the Ceiling Act, 1976 and the submissions

made on behalf of the petitioner that the vacant land deemed to have

been acquired by the State Government under the Ceiling Act, 1976 or

under any other law can be allotted only for the purpose as mentioned

in Section 23(1) of the Ceiling Act, 1976.

17. Now, it has to be considered whether the allotments are

required to be cancelled in view of the above conclusions.

Out of 99 cases under scrutiny, some allotments are

cancelled and the lands in question are in possession of the State

Government, some allottees have not put the allotted lands for use and

the lands are lying vacant, however, some allottees have put the

allotted lands for use, for the purpose for which the lands are allotted.

In cases where the allotted lands are not put to use and the

allotted lands are lying vacant, the allotments shall stand cancelled and

those lands shall vest in the State Government forthwith. The State

Government shall immediately take possession of these lands.

Judgment 21 wp55.04.odt

In cases where the allottees have put the lands to use and

have spent amount for undertaking construction, in our view,

considering the proposition laid down in the judgment given in the case

of Printers (Mysore) Ltd. (supra), it would not be proper to direct

cancellation of the allotments. However, as we have concluded that the

allotments are made without following the proper procedure, we are of

the view that certain conditions should be imposed on the allottees.

In case of allotments for housing purpose, the allottees

shall not transfer their right, title and interest in the house/ apartment/

flat/ block/ tenement constructed on the allotted land without seeking

prior permission of Collector, Nagpur and without paying additional

charges/ profit, if and as may be determined by the Collector, Nagpur,

according to the Rules/ policy governing and permitting the transfer of

such properties.

In case of schools/ educational institutions constructed on

the lands allotted under the Ceiling Act, 1976 it should be treated that

those schools/ educational institutions have received aid from the State

Government and those schools/ educational institutions and their

managements will be governed by the Rules/policy of the State

Judgment 22 wp55.04.odt

Government governing aided institutions for the purposes of admissions

in those schools/ educational institutions. Though the schools/

educational institutions are not getting any recurring monetary aid /

grants from the State Government, as the schools/ educational

institutions are constructed on the land/ lands allotted under the

Ceiling Act, 1976, those schools/ educational institutions and their

management cannot claim the right to grant admissions to the students

as unaided schools/ educational institutions and admissions in these

schools/ educational institutions will be governed by the Rules/ Policy

governing the aided schools / educational institutions.

In case of Sahitya Bhushan Annabhau Sathe Smarak Trust

the affidavits filed on record show that the construction on the allotted

land for community hall and allied purposes is made from funds given

by the State Government. The allottee has not spent any amount. The

allotment of the land to Sahitya Bhushan Annabhau Sathe Smarak

Trust is required to be cancelled and the construction standing on it has

to be taken over by the State Government. This land along with the

construction should be used by the State Government for a purpose

which will sub-serve the common good as contemplated by sub-section

4 of Section 23 of the Ceiling Act, 1976.

Judgment 23 wp55.04.odt

18. Our conclusions are summarized as follows:

i) We hold that all the allotments (except the two allotments

referred in paragraph No.14) scrutinized by the One Man

Committee and which are subject matter of this Public

Interest Litigation are illegal and invalid.

ii) In cases where the allotted lands are not put to use and are

lying vacant, the allotments shall stand cancelled forthwith

and the lands shall vest in the State Government. The

State Government shall immediately take possession of

these lands.

iii) In cases of allotments for housing purposes where the

allottees have spent amount and undertaken construction,

it is directed that the allottees shall not transfer their

rights, title and interests in the house / flat / apartment /

block / tenement constructed on the allotted land, without

seeking prior permission of the Collector, Nagpur and if

required as per the Rules or Policy of the State

Government, by paying additional charges / profits as may

be determined by the Collector, Nagpur.

Judgment 24 wp55.04.odt

iv) In cases where the allotments made for running school /

institution and if school / institution is being run, it should

be treated that such school / institution has received aid

from the State Government and such school / institution

and its Management will be governed by the Rules / Policy

of the State Government regulating aided institutions for

the purpose of admissions in that school / institution. In

the cases of allotments for purposes other than discussed

above, the directions are summed up in the Schedule

which is part of this judgment.

Our conclusions regarding each case scrutinized by us are

recorded in the Schedule which is annexed to this judgment and to be

treated as part of this judgment.

We place on record appreciation for the assistance

rendered by learned advocate Shri Anand Parchure, learned

Government Pleader Ms Bharti Dangre, learned Additional Government

Pleader Shri S.M.Uke and all the learned advocates who have

represented the private parties.

                            (Z.A.HAQ, J.)                                   (P.B.VARALE, J.)
RRaut..




  Judgment                                             25                                  wp55.04.odt




                                        SCHEDULE

Mother Teresa of The one man committee has not found any Missionaries of Charity, irregularity or illegality in the allotment of land to Nagpur. this institution. It is nobody's case that the land is not used for the purpose for which it is allotted.

(Case No.1) The land shall continue with the allottee till the charitable institution which is being run on the allotted land continues to function. However, if the allottee intends to challenge the user / purpose, then allottee shall seek prior permission of the Collector, Nagpur and the allotment will continue subject to the order which may be passed by the Collector in the matter.

Uranium Corporation According to the State Government the allotment is of India cancelled and the land vests in the State Government.

(Case No.2)

Deputy Director According to the State Government the allotment is General of Mines cancelled and the land vests in the State Safety, Western Zone, Government.

Nagpur.

(Case No.3) Executive Engineer The one man committee observed that this land is P.W.D. No.I (National used for the purpose and project for which it is Highway), Nagpur. granted. The only objection which is pointed out is that the valuation of the land is not done and (Case No.4) amount is not recovered from the allottee. The Competent Authority is directed to take steps for getting done the valuation of the allotted land and recover the amount from the allottee as per Rules.

Executive Engineer The one man committee observed that the price / M.S.E.B., Nagpur. valuation of the allotted land is not determined.

The allottee has filed affidavit dated 11 th January, (Case No.5) 2017 stating that the price of the land is determined and the amount is deposited. To support the submission, communication dated 15 th September, 2016 is placed on the record.

Judgment 26 wp55.04.odt

In this case we find that the allotment is permissible for the purpose covered by Section 23 of the Act of 1976 and, therefore, no further orders / directions are required.

Collector, Nagpur The one man committee has observed that the Koradi Gaothan, Tah. relevant records were not produced because of Kamptee. which scrutiny could not be done. Inspite of all opportunities given to the respondent - State of (Case No.6) Maharashtra necessary details of user of the allotted land are not placed on the record. In this case we propose that further enquiry is necessary.

Defence Estate Officer It is submitted on behalf of the allottee that earlier (Gajraj Project), the land intended to be used for the purpose for Nagpur. which it was allotted, however, subsequently, the land is transferred to be used for MIHAN Project. (Case No.7) The one man committee has not found any irregularity or illegality in the allotment. The allotment still falls under Section 23 of the Act of 1976. Therefore, no further directions are required in this case.

Border Road It is submitted that the allotment is cancelled and Organization, Nagpur. the land is in possession of the State Government. (Case No.8) Vidarbha Handicrafts The erstwhile owner of the land tried to raise some Artisans Welfare dispute, however, in this public interest litigation Association, Nagpur. we are not concerned with it. (Case No.9) According to the respondent - State of Maharashtra land allotted to the association is being used for the purpose for which it is allotted. In this case also we direct that till the land is used for the purpose for which it is allotted there is no need for taking any action. However, if the allottee intends to change the user / purpose, then allottee shall seek prior permission of the Collector, Nagpur and the allotment will continue subject to the order which may be passed by the Collector in the matter.

Judgment 27 wp55.04.odt

Sahitya Bhushan Anna The one man committee observed that the Bhau Sathe Smarak allotment order did not show the purpose for which Trust, Nagpur. the land is allotted. The facts on record show that the construction is undertaken over the allotted (Case No.10) land, however, the entire expenses for construction are borne by the State Government. The allottee has not spent any amount.

We direct that allotted land and the construction over it shall vest in the State Government and it be used for some appropriate purpose to be determined by the State Government and the allotted land and the construction will be under the control of Collector, Nagpur.

Dr. Vikas Mahatme The observations of one man committee show that Medical Director, Eye the land is used for the purpose for which it is Bank Hospital S.S.M. granted. In this case we direct that till the land is Eye Welfare Charitable, used for the purpose for which it is allotted there is Nagpur. no need for taking any action. However, if the allottee intends to change the user / purpose then (Case No.11) allottee shall seek prior permission of the Collector, Nagpur and the allotment will continue subject to the order which may be passed by the Collector in the matter.

Somalwar Academy The respondent - State Government has submitted Education Society, that the allotment of land is cancelled and the land Nagpur. is in possession of the State Government. (Case No.12) Agriculture Produce The respondent - State Government has submitted Market Committee, that the land is handed over to the owner of the Nagpur. land as per the order passed by this Court. (Case No.13) Bhartiya Vidya Bhawan The respondent has submitted that the land is used Society, Nagpur. for the purpose for which it is allotted. The allottee is running school on the allotted land. We (Case No.14) direct that school run by the allottee on the allotted land shall be bound by the Rules / Policy of the State Government and the competent / appropriate Authority regulating admissions in aided schools.

  Judgment                                            28                                  wp55.04.odt




 Vidarbha        

Bottlers, The facts on the record show that the allotment is Nagpur. for industry and, therefore, falls under Section 23(1) of the Act of 1976. The one man committee (Case No.15) has also not pointed out any substantial irregularity in the allotment and the matter was already before this Court in Writ Petition No.1090/2012. Considering the facts of the case no further enquiry / directions are required.

Sweekar Association of The State Government has submitted that the land Parents of Mentally is being used for accommodation of special Retarded Children children. The one man committee has observed Research Diagnostic that some amount of occupancy price is not Center, Nagpur. recovered from the allottee. The competent Authority is directed to take steps to recover the (Case No.16) amount if still payable by the allottee. In this case we direct that till the land is used for the purpose for which it is allotted there is no need for taking any action. However, if the allottee intends to change the user / purpose then allottee shall seek prior permission of the Collector, Nagpur and the allotment will continue subject to the order which may be passed by the Collector in the matter.

Rashtriya Apang The respondent - State Government has submitted Kalyan Sanstha, that the land is used for the care and welfare of (NAWPH), Nagpur. physically challenged persons. In this case also we direct that till the land is used for the purpose for (Case No.17) which it is allotted there is no need for taking any action. However, if the allottee intends to change the user / purpose, then allottee shall seek prior permission of the Collector, Nagpur and the allotment will continue subject to the order which may be passed by the Collector in the matter.

Additional Police In this case sufficient material is not placed on Commissioner, Nagpur record and, therefore, we propose to further hear City. the parties in this matter.

(Case No.18, 19, 20 &

21) Society for the The respondent - State Government has submitted Prevention of Cruelty that the land is used for the purpose for which it is

Judgment 29 wp55.04.odt

to Animals, Nagpur. allotted. In this case we direct that till the land is used for the purpose for which it is allotted there is (Case No.22) no need for taking any action. However, if the allottee intends to change the user / purpose, then allottee shall seek prior permission of the Collector, Nagpur and the allotment will continue subject to the order which may be passed by the Collector in the matter.

People Foundation The respondent - State of Maharashtra has Bhimnagar Nagpur. submitted that the allotment is cancelled. The competent authority shall file an affidavit within (Case No.23) one month about the status of land in question pointing out that possession is taken over.

Rajmata Rajkuvarbai The respondent - State of Maharashtra has Education Society, submitted that the allotment is cancelled. The Nagpur. competent authority shall file an affidavit within one month about the status of land in question (Case No.24) pointing out that possession is taken over.

Late Pandit The respondent - State of Maharashtra has Wamanshastri submitted that the allotment is cancelled. The Nanajishastri Pendke competent authority shall file an affidavit within Smarak Mandal, one month about the status of land in question Nagpur. pointing out that possession is taken over. (Case No.25) Vidarbha Patwari The respondent - State of Maharashtra has Sangh, Nagpur. submitted that the allotment is cancelled. The competent authority shall file an affidavit within (Case No.26) one month about the status of land in question pointing out that possession is taken over.

Regional Research The respondent - State of Maharashtra has Center, Nagpur submitted that the allotted land is used for the purpose for which is it allotted. The one man (Case No.27) committee has also not pointed out any grave irregularity in the allotment. We find that no further enquiry / orders are necessary in this case.

Judgment 30 wp55.04.odt

Nagpur Improvement The respondent/ State of Maharashtra has Trust, Nagpur submitted that in this case the land is not allotted by the State Government to the Nagpur (Case No.28) Improvement Trust.

Accepting the submission made on behalf of the State Government it is directed that no further enquiry is required in this matter.

Project Director In this case sufficient material is not brought on the Integrated Slum record. The one man committee has observed that Development, N.I.T. 1111 houses constructed on the allotted land are Nagpur. uanuthorizedly encroached. We propose to further hear the parties in this matter.

(Case No.29)

Nagpur Improvement The respondent - State of Maharashtra has Trust / Deputy Director submitted that the sports academy is constructed Krida and Yuvak Sewa, on the allotted land. Accepting the submission, it is Nagpur. directed that no further enquiry / orders are necessary in this case.

(Case No.30)

Late Yashodabai The respondent has submitted that the land is used Gudhade Education for the purpose for which it is allotted. The Society, Nagpur. allottee is running school on the allotted land. We direct that school run by the allottee on the allotted (Case No.31) land shall be bound by the Rules / Policy of the State Government and the competent / appropriate Authority regulating admissions in aided schools.

The Sikh Education The respondent has submitted that the land is used Society, Nagpur. for the purpose for which it is allotted. The allottee is running school on the allotted land. We (Case No.32) direct that school run by the allottee on the allotted land shall be bound by the Rules / Policy of the State Government and the competent / appropriate Authority regulating admissions in aided schools.

Bhartiya Aadim Jati The respondent has submitted that the land is used Sewak Sangh, Nagpur. for the purpose for which it is allotted. The allottee is running institution on the allotted land. (Case No.33) We direct that institution run by the allottee on the

Judgment 31 wp55.04.odt

allotted land shall be bound by the Rules / Policy of the State Government and the competent / appropriate Authority regulating admissions in aided institutions.

Masiha Balmitra Tiny The respondent has submitted that the land is used Tots School, Nagpur. for the purpose for which it is allotted. The allottee is running school on the allotted land. We (Case No.34) direct that school run by the allottee on the allotted land shall be bound by the Rules / Policy of the State Government and the competent / appropriate Authority regulating admissions in aided schools.

Indo Japan Buddhists The respondent - State of Maharashtra has Friends Association, submitted that the allotment is cancelled. The Nagpur. competent authority shall file an affidavit within one month about the status of land in question (Case No.35) pointing out that possession is taken over.

Maharashtra Rajya The respondent State of Maharashtra has submitted Vidyut Karmchari that the land is used for the purpose for which it is Sanstha, Nagpur. allotted. In this case we direct that till the land is used for the purpose for which it is allotted there is (Case No.36) no need for taking any action. However, if the allottee intends to change the user / purpose, then allottee shall seek prior permission of the Collector, Nagpur and the allotment will continue subject to the order which may be passed by the Collector in the matter.

Lohar Samaj Sasnthan, The material placed on record in this case is not Nagpur. sufficient to enable us to take decision. (Case No.37) We propose to further hear the parties in this matter.

Tirale Kunbi Sewa The respondent - State of Maharashtra has Mandal, Nagpur. submitted that the allotment is cancelled. The competent authority shall file an affidavit within (Case No.38) one month about the status of land in question pointing out that possession is taken over.

Judgment 32 wp55.04.odt

Mehmuda Shikshan The respondent has submitted that the land is used and Mahila Gramin for the purpose for which it is allotted. The Vikas Bahuuddeshiya allottee is running institution on the allotted land. Sanstha, Nagpur. We direct that institution run by the allottee on the allotted land shall be bound by the Rules / Policy of (Case No.39) the State Government and the competent / appropriate Authority regulating admissions in aided institutions.

Mehmuda Shikshan The allottee has filed an affidavit stating that the and Mahila Gramin land in question is returned to the State Vikas Bahuuddeshiya Government.

Sanstha, Nagpur. The Competent Authority shall file affidavit within (Case No.40) one month pointing out the status of the land and possession over it.

Lokmanya Tilak The respondent - State of Maharashtra has Jankalyan Shikshan submitted that the allotted land for Priyadarshini Sanstha, Nagpur. Polytechnic is not put to any use and there is no development / construction on it. The allotment of (Case No.41) land is cancelled forthwith. The respondent - State of Maharashtra shall take possession of land and the competent Authority shall file and affidavit within one month.

Lokmanya Tilak The respondent - State of Maharashtra has Jankalyan Shikshan submitted that the allotment is cancelled. The Sanstha, Nagpur. competent authority shall file an affidavit within one month about the status of land in question (Case No.42) pointing out that possession is taken over.

Maharashtra Khatik The respondent - State of Maharashtra has Samaj Vikas submitted that the allotment is for construction of Sanghatana, Nagpur. "Samaj Bhawan" and though the construction started it was stopped immediately.

(Case No.43) It is directed that the allotment shall stand cancelled forthwith and State Government shall take over the possession and the competent authority shall file an affidavit before this Court within one month.

Judgment 33 wp55.04.odt

Beghar Zopda Magas There is inter se dispute between two societies. In Wargiya Gruh Nirman our view issues will have to be considered Sahakari Sanstha separately.

Maryadit, Nagpur.

(Case No.44) Vidarbha Virshaiva The respondent - State of Maharashtra has Lingayat Samaj, submitted that the allotment is cancelled. The Nagpur. competent authority shall file an affidavit within one month about the status of land in question (Case No.45) pointing out that possession is taken over.

Viswas Education The respondent has submitted that the land is used Society, Nagpur. for the purpose for which it is allotted. The allottee is running school on the allotted land. We (Case No.46) direct that school run by the allottee on the allotted land shall be bound by the Rules / Policy of the State Government and the competent / appropriate Authority regulating admissions in aided schools.

Vidarbha Mulki-Sewa The respondent - State of Maharashtra has (Deputy Collector) submitted that the allotment is cancelled. The Sansthan, Nagpur. competent authority shall file an affidavit within one month about the status of land in question (Case No.47) pointing out that possession is taken over.

Bhagyashri Co- The respondent - State of Maharashtra has operative Housing submitted that the allotment is cancelled. The Society, Nagpur. competent authority shall file an affidavit within one month about the status of land in question (Case No.48) pointing out that possession is taken over.

Shri Dilip Thanekar The respondent - State of Maharashtra has Vasantdada Patil submitted that the allotment is cancelled. The Smruti Pratishthan, competent authority shall file an affidavit within Nagpur. one month about the status of land in question pointing out that possession is taken over. (Case No.49)

Jayanti Jyoti Deaf and The respondent - State of Maharashtra has Dumb Residency submitted that the allotment is cancelled. The

Judgment 34 wp55.04.odt

School and Hostel, competent authority shall file an affidavit within Nagpur. one month about the status of land in question pointing out that possession is taken over. (Case No.50)

Government Pleaders The respondent - State of Maharashtra has and Law and Judiciary submitted that the land is used for the purpose for Department Employees which it is allotted. In this case we direct that till Co-operative Housing the land is used for the purpose for which it is Society, Nagpur. allotted there is no need for taking any action. (Case No.51 and 51A) However, if the allottee intends to change the user / purpose, then allottee shall seek prior permission of the Collector, Nagpur and the allotment will continue subject to the order which may be passed by the Collector in the matter.

Akhil Bhartiya The respondent - State of Maharashtra has Aadiwasi Vikas submitted that the allotment is cancelled. The Parishad 15-Canning competent authority shall file an affidavit within Lane, New Delhi. one month about the status of land in question pointing out that possession is taken over. (Case No.52)

The Peoples' The respondent - State of Maharashtra has Progressive Education submitted that the allotment was cancelled and Society, Nagpur. informed to the allottee by the Collector, Nagpur on 4th July, 2009, that the allottee had filed Writ (Case No.53) Petition No.5656/2010 which is decided on 31 st March, 2011 and Collector, Nagpur was directed to take fresh decision regarding the allotment of land, that the Collector, Nagpur submitted report to the State Government on 29th October, 2012 and as per the decision of Cabinet Special Committee taken on 29th July, 2015 the hearing is to be given by the Government. There is nothing on record to show that the allottee has undertaken any construction or has spent any amount. It is directed that the allotment shall stand cancelled and the competent authority shall file an affidavit within one month that the possession is taken by the State Government.

Judgment 35 wp55.04.odt

Sant Gamaji Shikshan The respondent - State of Maharashtra has Sanstha, Hingna, submitted that the allotment is cancelled. The Nagpur. competent authority shall file an affidavit within one month about the status of land in question (Case No.54) pointing out that possession is taken over.

Shrikrishna Shikshan The respondent - State of Maharashtra has Sanstha, Nagpur. submitted that the allotment is cancelled. The competent authority shall file an affidavit within (Case No.55) one month about the status of land in question pointing out that possession is taken over.

Mumbai Educational The respondent - State of Maharashtra has Trust Bandra Mumbai. submitted that the allotment is cancelled. The competent authority shall file an affidavit within (Case No.56) one month about the status of land in question pointing out that possession is taken over.

Vinayak The respondent - State of Maharashtra has Bahuuddeshiya Gramin submitted that the allotment is cancelled. The Vikas Sanstha, Digras, competent authority shall file an affidavit within Distt. Yavatmal. one month about the status of land in question pointing out that possession is taken over. (Case No.57)

Sankalp Swayamsewi The respondent - State of Maharashtra has Samaj Sanghatana, submitted that the allotment is cancelled. The Nagpur. competent authority shall file an affidavit within one month about the status of land in question (Case No.58) pointing out that possession is taken over.

Vidarbha The respondent - State of Maharashtra has Magaswargiya submitted that the allotment is cancelled. The Yantramag Sahakari competent authority shall file an affidavit within Sanstha Maryadit, one month about the status of land in question Nagpur.(Case No.59) pointing out that possession is taken over. Housing Development Sufficient material is not placed on record and, and Area Development therefore, we propose to further hear the parties in Board Nagpur. this matter.

 (Case No.60 and 61)




  Judgment                                            36                                  wp55.04.odt

Nagpur Improvement Sufficient material is not placed on record and, Trust, Nagpur. therefore, we propose to further hear the parties in this matter.

(Case No.62)

Matoshri Rambai The respondent - State of Maharashtra has Ambedkar Kalyankari submitted that the allotment is cancelled. The Sanstha, Nagpur. competent authority shall file an affidavit within one month about the status of land in question (Case No.63) pointing out that possession is taken over.

Maharashtra Officers The respondent - State of Maharashtra has Forum, Nagpur. submitted that the allotment is cancelled. The competent authority shall file an affidavit within (Case No.64) one month about the status of land in question pointing out that possession is taken over.

West Maharashtra The respondent - State of Maharashtra has Udyojak Mitra Mandal, submitted that the allotment is cancelled. The Nagpur. competent authority shall file an affidavit within one month about the status of land in question (Case No.65) pointing out that possession is taken over.

Late M.L. Mankar for The respondent - State of Maharashtra has education purpose. submitted that the allotment is cancelled. The competent authority shall file an affidavit within (Case No.66) one month about the status of land in question pointing out that possession is taken over.

Shramik Patrakar Co- The respondent - State of Maharashtra has operative Society, submitted that the allotment is cancelled. The Nagpur. competent authority shall file an affidavit within one month about the status of land in question (Case No.67) pointing out that possession is taken over.

Nagpur College of The respondent - State of Maharashtra has Homeopathy & submitted that the allotment is cancelled. The Biochemistry & competent authority shall file an affidavit within Hospital, Nagpur. one month about the status of land in question pointing out that possession is taken over.

 (Case No.69)




  Judgment                                             37                                  wp55.04.odt




 Freedom         Fighter  The   respondent   -   State   of   Maharashtra   has 
 Wriddhashram             submitted   that   the   allotment   is   cancelled.     The 

Samitteee Bhankheda, competent authority shall file an affidavit within Nagpur. one month about the status of land in question pointing out that possession is taken over. (Case No.70)

Zilla Sainik Kalyan The respondent - State of Maharashtra has Adhikari Office, submitted that the allotment is cancelled. The Nagpur. competent authority shall file an affidavit within one month about the status of land in question (Case No.71) pointing out that possession is taken over.

Magaswagiya Beghar The respondent - State of Maharashtra has Mahila Gruha-nirman submitted that the allotment is cancelled. The Sahakari Sanstha, competent authority shall file an affidavit within Nagpur. one month about the status of land in question pointing out that possession is taken over. (Case No.72) Writ Petitions about allotment of this land are pending before this Court and final orders regarding this land will be as per the decision in those writ petitions.

Nagpur Improvement The material on record is not sufficient to take any Trust, Nagpur. decision and, therefore, we propose to further hear the parties in this matter.

(Case No.73)

Commissioner, The material on record is not sufficient to take any Municipal Corporation, decision and, therefore, we propose to further hear Nagpur.(Case No.74) the parties in this matter. Consumer Forum, Food The respondent - State of Maharashtra has & Civil Supplies, submitted that the allotment is cancelled. The Consumer Protection competent authority shall file an affidavit within Department Mumbai. one month about the status of land in question pointing out that possession is taken over. (Case No.75)

The Nagpur Mahila The respondent - State of Maharashtra has Gruha Nirman Sanstha, submitted that the allotment is cancelled. The Nagpur. competent authority shall file an affidavit within one month about the status of land in question (Case No.76) pointing out that possession is taken over.

Judgment 38 wp55.04.odt

Yashwantrao Chawhan The respondent - State of Maharashtra has Maharashtra Open submitted that the allotment is cancelled. The University, Nagpur. competent authority shall file an affidavit within one month about the status of land in question (Case No.77) pointing out that possession is taken over.

Vanjari Samaj Sewa The respondent - State of Maharashtra has Parishad, Nagpur. submitted that the allotment is cancelled. The competent authority shall file an affidavit within (Case No.78) one month about the status of land in question pointing out that possession is taken over. Keshao Madhao The respondent - State of Maharashtra has Education Society submitted that the allotment is cancelled. The Parsodi Road competent authority shall file an affidavit within Gopalnagar, Nagpur. one month about the status of land in question pointing out that possession is taken over. (Case No.79) Maharashtra State Ex- The respondent - State of Maharashtra has Amdar Samanvay submitted that the allotment is cancelled. The Samiti. competent authority shall file an affidavit within one month about the status of land in question (Case No.80) pointing out that possession is taken over.

Green City Govt. It is pointed out that Petition for Special Leave to Officers Housing Co- Appeal C-6708/2009 is pending before the Hon'ble op. Society, Nagpur. Supreme Court and the Cabinet Special Committee has taken a decision on 2 nd July, 2010 to defer the (Case No.81) decision in this case. We propose to further hear the parties in this matter.

Ganesh Education The respondent - State of Maharashtra has Mandal Mahal, Nagpur. submitted that the allotment is cancelled. The competent authority shall file an affidavit within (Case No.82) one month about the status of land in question pointing out that possession is taken over.

Bharat Sewawshram The respondent - State of Maharashtra has Sangh, Nagpur. submitted that there is no allotment of land to this Society. The competent authority shall file an (Case No.83) affidavit within one month about the status of land in question pointing out that possession is taken over.

Judgment 39 wp55.04.odt

Vidarbha Kalakar The respondent - State of Maharashtra has Sangh, Uttar Ambazari submitted that the allotment is cancelled. The Marg, Nagpur. competent authority shall file an affidavit within one month about the status of land in question (Case No.84) pointing out that possession is taken over.

Society of Universal The respondent - State of Maharashtra has Mothers & Orphans, submitted that the allotment is cancelled. The Nagpur. competent authority shall file an affidavit within one month about the status of land in question (Case No.85) pointing out that possession is taken over.

Mehmuda Shikshan & The respondent - State of Maharashtra has Mahila Gramin Vikas submitted that the allotment is cancelled. The Bahuddeshiya Sanstha, competent authority shall file an affidavit within Nagpur. one month about the status of land in question pointing out that possession is taken over. (Case No.86)

National Trust for the The respondent - State of Maharashtra has Multidisciplinary submitted that the allotment is cancelled. It is Hospital & Research further submitted that as per judgment passed in Institute at Nagpur. Civil Suit No.358/1993 20000 Sq. Mtrs. land returned to the original owner and land is not (Case No.87) available for allotment as per the proposal. The competent authority shall file an affidavit within one month about the status of land and possession.

Sneha Bahuuddeshiya The respondent - State of Maharashtra has Sanstha, Nagpur. submitted that the allotment is cancelled. The competent authority shall file an affidavit within (Case No.88) one month about the status of land in question pointing out that possession is taken over.

Nisha Multipurpose The respondent - State of Maharashtra has Society, Nagpur. submitted that the allotment is cancelled. The competent authority shall file an affidavit within (Case No.89) one month about the status of land in question pointing out that possession is taken over.

 Vidarbha           Wanwasi  The   respondent   -   State   of   Maharashtra   has 
 Kalyan             Ashram,  submitted   that   the   allotment   is   cancelled.     The 




  Judgment                                             40                                  wp55.04.odt




 Nagpur.                       competent   authority   shall   file   an   affidavit   within 

one month about the status of land in question (Case No.90) pointing out that possession is taken over.

Ahir Yadav Samaj, The respondent - State of Maharashtra has Nagpur. submitted that the allotment is cancelled. The competent authority shall file an affidavit within (Case No.91) one month about the status of land in question pointing out that possession is taken over.

Dr. Babasaheb The respondent - State of Maharashtra has Ambedkar, Gruh submitted that the order regarding allotment of Nirman Sanstha, land in favour of this Society was not issued. The Nagpur. competent authority shall file an affidavit within one month about the status of land in question and (Case No.92) possession.

S.D. Charitable The respondent - State of Maharashtra has Medical Relief & submitted that the allotment is cancelled. The Educational Trust, competent authority shall file an affidavit within Nagpur. one month about the status of land in question and possession.

(Case No.93)

Swargiya The respondent - State of Maharashtra has Narayansingh Uikey, submitted that the allotment is cancelled. The Nagpur. competent authority shall file an affidavit within one month about the status of land in question and (Case No.94) possession.

Shri Sacchidanand The respondent - State of Maharashtra has Shikshan Sanstha, submitted that the allotment is cancelled. The Nagpur. competent authority shall file an affidavit within one month about the status of land in question and (Case No.95) possession.

Media Employees Co- The respondent - State of Maharashtra has operative Housing submitted that the order allotting the land in favour Society, Nagpur. of the Society is not issued. The competent authority shall file an affidavit within one month (Case No.96) about the status of land in question and possession.

                     Judgment                                             41                                  wp55.04.odt




                    Bari Samaj, Nagpur.           The   respondent   -   State   of   Maharashtra   has 
                                                  submitted   that   the   allotment   is   cancelled.     The 
                    (Case No.97)

competent authority shall file an affidavit within one month about the status of land in question pointing out that possession is taken over.

Society for The respondent - State of Maharashtra has International submitted that the allotment is cancelled. The Education Research & competent authority shall file an affidavit within Development, Nagpur. one month about the status of land in question pointing out that possession is taken over. (Case No.98)

Sindhi Hindi Vidya The respondent - State of Maharashtra has Samiti, Nagpur. submitted that the order allotting the land in favour of the Society is not issued. The competent (Case No.99) authority shall file an affidavit within one month about the status of land in question and possession.

Shri D.V. Chauhan, advocate for the allottee / Lokmanya Tilak Jankalyan Shikshan Sanstha, Nagpur requested that the order of cancellation of allotment be kept in abeyance for two months to enable the allottee to take appropriate steps in the matter.

As the lands are lying idle and are not being used by the allottee, we reject the prayer made on behalf of the allottee.

                                     (Z.A.HAQ, J.)                            (P.B.VARALE, J.)




RRaut/Tambaskar.