Bombay High Court
Mumulbai Dharamdeo Arora & 13 ... vs The Collector, Amt.District, ... on 18 September, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1
wp1769.02.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.1769 of 2002
1. Mumulbai Dharamdeo Arora,
Aged about 58 years,
since dead, through her LRs.:
*1(1) Jyoti Satdeo Arora,
Aged 41 years,
R/o Lane No.2,
Dasturnagar, Amravati.
*1(2) Dimpal Satdeo Arora,
Aged 15 years,
R/o Lane No.2,
Dasturnagar, Amravati,
through her legal guardian -
Jyoti Satdeo Arora.
(*Added as per Hon'ble Court's
order dated 18-9-2017).
2. Rajesh Dwarkanath Arora,
Aged about 30 years.
3. Jasvant Sevakram Bodhani,
Aged about 40 years.
4. Arjundas Satramdas Nathani,
Aged about 40 years.
5. Ashokkumar Sawaldas Jagmalani,
Aged about 45 years.
6. Yogesh Hansraj Khatri,
Aged about 25 years.
7. Lajwantibai w/o Gyanchand Parvani,
Aged about 35 years.
::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 02:05:10 :::
2
wp1769.02.odt
8. Shankarlal Harichand Mehta,
Aged about 40 years.
9. Indrakumar Harichand Mehta,
Aged about 40 years.
10. Gurmukhdas Vasuram Ghundiyal,
Aged about 60 years.
11. Kishore Daryanomal Jeevtani,
Aged about 40 years.
12. Nirmalabai w/o Roopchand Diwan,
Aged about 80 years,
since dead, through her LR.:
**12(1) Dinesh s/o Roopchand Diwan,
Aged 45 years, Major,
Occupation - Business,
R/o 45/2, Dasturnagar,
Amravati.
(** Added as per Hon'ble Court's
order dated 18-9-2017).
13. Manohar Gopichand Dadlani,
Aged about 40 years.
***14.Nandkishor s/o Locharam Uttaradhi,
Aged about 45 years,
Occupation - Business,
R/o Dastur Nagar,
Amravati.
(***Substitution of the name of
respondent No.14 is carried out
as per the order of Hon'ble Court
dated 18-9-2017).
::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 02:05:10 :::
3
wp1769.02.odt
Shop-keepers of Jijamata 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
Shri S.N. Tapadia, holding for Shri R.M. Bhangde, Advocates for
Petitioners.
Shri Nitin Rode, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1
and 2.
Shri J.B. Kasat, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
Coram : R.K. Deshpande & Manish Pitale, JJ.
Dated : 18 September, 2017
th
Oral Judgment (Per R.K. Deshpande, J.) :
1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
2. The challenge in this petition is to the order
dated 24-4-2002, 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
wp1769.02.odt
petitioners. On the basis of this order, notice
dated 29-4-2002 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. Shri S.N. Tapadia, holding for Shri R.M. Bhangde, the
learned counsels appearing for the petitioners, invited our
attention to the order dated 23-9-1964 passed by the State
Government accepting the proposal submitted by the Collector
for grant of lease in respect of the plots in question in favour of
the petitioners or their predecessor-in-title. It was a lease for the
period of 30 years commencing from 1-3-1964 up to 31-7-1994.
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
wp1769.02.odt
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 Shri Tapadia, the Collector was required
to consider the question of renewal of lease of petitioners for
further period of 30 years up to 31-7-2024 from 31-7-1994, and
without considering such proposal, which is said to have been
submitted by the petitioners, the order dated 24-4-2002 was
passed.
5. We have gone through the order dated 22-4-2002
passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1513 of 2002, which is
on record and mentioned in the order of Collector
dated 24-4-2002. We do not find that the petitioners are the
wp1769.02.odt
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 24-4-2002 has been passed, upon
which, the notice of demolition of structure and handing over of
possession was issued on 29-4-2002. 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 thirty years
commencing from 31-7-1994 to 31-7-2024. It is only a
determination of such issue, it shall be open to the respondents
to proceed further in accordance with law.
wp1769.02.odt
7. In view of this, writ petition is allowed. The order
dated 24-4-2002 passed by the Collector impugned in this
petition along with notice dated 29-4-2002 directing the
petitioners to demolish the structure and hand over the
possession are hereby quashed and set aside.
8. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No
order as to costs.
(Manish Pitale, J.) (R.K. Deshpande, J.)
Lanjewar
