Bombay High Court
Rajkumar Lilaram Verma & Others vs The Collector Amravati & Others on 7 September, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1 WP-1770.02.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1770 OF 2002
1. Rajkumar Lilaram Verma,
Aged about 44 years,
2. Pravin Mahadeorao Jain,
Aged about 30 years,
3. Hariram Sachumal Dalwani,
Aged about 56 years,
4. Ashok Bhawandas Dalwani,
Aged about 45 years,
5. Sushil Jawaharmal Chawla,
Aged about 29 years,
6. Rajkumar Gokuldas Bulani,
Aged about 39 years,
7. Ghanshyamdas Daturam Gangwani,
Dead, Through Legal Representatives -
7(1) Suraj s/o Ghanshyamdas Gangwani,
aged about 44 years, Occ.: Business,
r/o. Rampuri Camp, Amravati.
7(2) Sonia w/o Mahesh Jadhawani,
aged 52 years, r/o VIP Colony,
Raipur, (Chhatisgarh)
8. Sou. Meerabai Hukumal Kukreja, [Deleted]
Aged about 55 years,
9. Parmanand Goumal Sundrani,
Dead, Through Legal Representatives -
9(1) Yogesh s/o Sureshkumar Sundrani,
aged about 24 years, Occ. : Business,
9(2) Shyamkumar s/o Parmanand,
aged about 52 years, Occ.: Business,
Both R/o. Rampuri Camp, Amravati
::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2017 00:41:38 :::
2 WP-1770.02.odt
9(3) Rajkumari w/o Manoharlal Jadhwani,
aged about 54 years, r/o Jamner road,
Opp. Sindhi Colony, Bhusawal
9(4) Padma w/o Jamuyatrao Dewani,
aged about 50 years, r/o Orenge city,
behind six banglow, Indore
10. Sevakram Joggumal Pinjani,
Aged about 62 years,
11. Rajkumar Hundrajmal Sawra,
Aged about 40 years,
12. Judiram Ghanshyamdas Kamdar,
Dead, Through Legal Representatives -
12(1) Sunil s/o Judiram Kamdar,
aged about 49 years, Occ.: Business,
r/o 22, Baba Hardas Society,
Kavarnagar, Amravati.
13. Sou. Ishwaribai Uddhamdas Jeevtani,
Aged about 58 years,
14. Parmanand Murlidhar Makhwani,
Aged about 35 years,
15. Mangirmal Ishwardas Ahuja, [Deleted]
Aged about 75 years,
16. Dilip Kumar Baldevram Sadhwani,
Aged about 30 years,
17. Nandlal Motumal Rajpal,
Aged about 42 years,
18. Murlidhar Jhamatmal Dhamecha,
Dead, Through Legal Representatives -
18(1) Gyanchand s/o Murlidhar Dhamecha,
aged about 48 years, Occ. : Business
18(2) Suresh s/o Murlidhar Dhamecha,
aged about 44 years, both r/o
Sahakar Nagar, Opp. New Cotton
Market, Amravati
18(3) Rajni w/o Murlidhar Kamrani,
aged about 57 years, r/o Krushnanagar,
::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2017 00:41:38 :::
3 WP-1770.02.odt
Lane No.3, Amravati.
18(4) Hema w/o Akash Dodani,
aged about 29 years, Madhuban Plaza,
Shivaji Nagar, Chandrapur.
19. Barumal Totaram Batra,
Aged about 50 years,
20. Laxmandas Seumal Basantwani,
Dead, Through Legal Representatives -
20(1) Mohanlal s/o Laxmandas Basantwani,
aged about 50 years, Occ. : Business,
r/o. Krushnanagar, Lane No.3,
Amravati
20(2) Chanditya s/o Laxmandas Basantwani,
aged about 58 years, Occ. : Business,
r/o Icon Heights, Shankarnagar road,
Amravati.
20(3) Harish s/o Laxmandas Basantwani,
aged about 47 years, r/o Krushna-
nagar, Lane No.3, Amravati
21. Nankibai Dayaldas Chhatwani,
Dead, Through Legal Representatives -
21(1) Vijaykumar s/o Milkiram Chatwani,
aged about 50 years, Occ.: Business,
r/o Shivkrupa Colony, Sindhunagar,
Amravati.
22. Jagdish Leelaram Popli,
Aged about 45 years,
23. Sou. Kalabai Murlidhar Dhamecha,
Dead, Through Legal Representatives -
23(1) Gyanchand s/o Murlidhar Dhamecha,
aged about 48 years, Occ. : Business,
23(2) Suresh s/o Murlidhar Dhamecha,
aged about 44 years, both r/o
Sahakar Nagar, Opp. New Cotton
Market, Amravati
23(3) Rajni w/o Murlidhar Kamrani,
aged about 57 years, r/o Krushna-
nagar, Lane No.3, Amravati.
23(4) Hema w/o Akash Dodani,
::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2017 00:41:38 :::
4 WP-1770.02.odt
aged about 29 years, Madhuban
Plaza, Shivaji Nagar, Chandrapur.
24. Suresh Murlidhar Dhamecha,
Aged about 31 years,
25. Sushilabai Chaganlal Shadi,
Aged about 70 years,
26. Satyavan Gurbomal Harvani,
Aged about 45 years,
27. Totamal Kumatlal Batra,
Aged about 65 years,
Shop-keepers of Vasantrao Naik Market,
Amravati, Dist. Amravati. ... PETITIONERS
.. Versus ..
1. The Collector,
Amravati District,
Amravati.
2. The Assistant Director,
Town Planning, Amravati.
3. The Amravati Municipal Corporation,
Amravati. ... RESPONDENTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr. M.G. Bhangde, Senior Advocate with Mr. S.N. Tapadia,
Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. B.M. Lonare, Addl. Govt. Pleader for the Respondent No.1
Mr. J.B. Kasat, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 3.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE &
MANISH PITALE, JJ.
DATED : September 7, 2017.
5 WP-1770.02.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.K. DESHPANDE, J.)
Heard Mr. M.G. Bhangde, the learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Mr. S.N. Tapadia, Advocate for the
petitioners, Mr. J.B. Kasat, learned counsel for respondent
Nos.2 & 3 and Mr. B.M. Lonare, learned Addl.G.P. for
respondent No.1.
2. The challenge in this petition is to the order
dated 24.04.2002, passed by the Collector, Amravati
refusing to renew the leases granted to the petitioners in
respect of the plots in the layout on which the shop blocks
are constructed by the petitioners. On the basis of this
order, notice dated 29.04.2002 was issued to the petitioners
stating that the Collector has refused to renew their leases
and hence, they are called upon to demolish the structure
and hand over the possession of the plots in their
occupation.
3. Mr. Bhangde, Learned Senior Advocate, invited
our attention to the order dated 24.06.1970 passed by the
State Government accepting the proposal submitted by the
Collector for grant of lease in respect of the plots in
6 WP-1770.02.odt
question in favour of the petitioners or their predecessor-in-
title. It was a lease for the period of 30 years commencing
from 24.11.1970 upto 31.07.2000. The lease agreement
contains a clause of renewal which is reproduced below :-
"4. If the Lessee shall have duly performed and
observed the covenants and conditions on the part
of the Lessee herein contained and shall at the end
of the said term hereby granted or at the end of the
term as often as renewed from time to time
hereafter be desirous of receiving new lease of the
said land and of such desire shall give in writing
notice of one calender month before the expiration
of the said term whereupon the Lessor shall and
will at the cost and expense in every respect of the
Lessee grant to the Lessee a new lease of the said
land for the further term of thirty years on the
same terms and conditions but at such enhanced
rent as the Lessor may in his absolute discretion
determine."
4. According to Mr. Bhangde, the Collector was
required to consider the question of renewal of lease of
petitioners for further period of 30 years upto 31.07.2030
from 31.07.2000, and without considering such proposal,
which is said to have been submitted by the petitioners, the
order dated 24.04.2002 was passed.
5. We have gone through the order dated
22.04.2002 passed by this Court in W.P. No.1513/2002
which is on record and mentioned in the order of Collector
7 WP-1770.02.odt
dated 24.04.2002. We do not find that the petitioners are
the encroachers who are liable to be removed under the
said order passed by this Court. The petitioners are
authorized lessees in respect of the plots in their occupation
and the right of renewal of lease is required to be
considered in accordance with the law. Without
considering such question of renewal of the lease of the
petitioners, the order dated 24.04.2002 has been passed,
upon which, the notice of demolition of structure and
handing over of possession was issued on 29.04.2002. It is
not in dispute that rights of the petitioners are not worked
out in respect of renewal of lease, which would be a
condition precedent for taking any further action based
upon such order to be passed by the Collector.
6. In view of above, this writ petition has to be
allowed with direction to the Collector to consider the
proposal of the petitioners to renew the lease for further
period of 30 years commencing from 31.07.2000 to
31.07.2030. It is only a determination of such issue, it shall
be open to the respondents to proceed further in
accordance with law.
8 WP-1770.02.odt
7. In view of this, writ petition is allowed. The
order dated 24.04.2002 passed by the Collector impugned
in this petition alongwith notice dated 29.04.2002 directing
the petitioners to demolish the structure and hand over the
possession are hereby quashed and set aside.
8. The rule is made absolute in this term. No order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
waghmare
