Indo Israeli Agro Industries ... vs State Of Maharashtra Through ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 10401 Bom

                                                          10.3629.21 wp.doc

ISM
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                         WRIT PETITION NO. 3629 OF 2021

      INDO ISRAELI AGRO INDUSTRIES                    ....PETITIONER
      CHAMBERS

              V/s.

      STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS                 .....RESPONDENTS

      Mr. Chaitanya Chavan i/b Mr. Prithviraj S. Gole for the Petitioner
      Mr. S. H. Kankal AGP for the State


                        CORAM :    NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

                        DATE:      AUGUST 5, 2021.

      P.C.:

      1]      This petition is by plaintiff to R.C.S. No. 29/2019 pending on

the fle Civil Judge Senior Division, Palghar.

2] Petitioner-Plaintiff sought temporary injunction in a suit for

simplicitor injunction thereby restraining respondent from disturbing

lawful possession of the petitioner-plaintiff over the suit property

without following due process of law.

10.3629.21 wp.doc

3] In the said suit, application Exh. 5 moved by the petitioner

came to be allowed vide order dated 20/03/2020 thereby restraining

respondent from taking possession of the suit property without

following due process of law. Respondent State Government feeling

aggrieved, preferred Misc. Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2020 which came to

be allowed vide impugned order dated 07/07/2020. As such, this

petition.

4] Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that petitioners

are not trespassers to the property in question. According to him, the

petitioner, a registered association is formed with an object of

promoting the trade commerce and agricultural industries among

people in India and Israel. Counsel would urge that petitioner has

offces throughout State of Maharashtra at the major districts.

Considering the need for land and building, petitioners moved the

respondent for allotment land and structure vide request dated

08/08/2007. Such prayer came to be granted on 09/08/2007.

According to him, Divisional Agricultural Joint Director Konkan

10.3629.21 wp.doc

Division has granted permission on temporary basis to occupy the

suit property upto 31/03/2008 for the purpose of imparting

agricultural training. Accordingly, an agreement to that effect was

entered into between Government Offcer and the Petitioner. It is

further claimed that temporary possession of the petitioner was

further recommended to be extended by 11 years and this is how the

petitioner continued in possession of the suit property.

5] Prayer of the petitioner for grant of extension of lease on the

aforesaid agricultural land and structure was already rejected.

6] The contention of the petitioner is, having put into possession

of the suit property by following due process of law, long standing

possession of the petitioner cannot be disturbed without taking

recourse to the statutory procedure of eviction. As such, temporary

injunction came to be ordered which is upset by the Appellate Court.

As such, this Petition.

7] While inviting attention of this Court to the provisions of clause

10.3629.21 wp.doc

53 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (Hereinafter referred to as

'Code' for the sake of brevity) the submissions of learned counsel for

the petitioner are, issue of eviction is already subjudiced before the

Collector. According to him, if the statute provides for eviction of the

lawful occupant like the petitioner, by following due process of law,

particularly in the light of provisions of Section 53 of the Code,

petitioner cannot be evicted without following due process of law.

Further contention is, Appellate Court has failed to look into the

same and also the aspect of long standing possession of the

petitioner. By inviting attention of this Court to the Judgment of the

Apex Court in the matter of Krishna Ram Mahale (Dead) by His Lrs

Vs. Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao1 it is claimed that forcible possession of

the property cannot be obtained and what is required to be taken

recourse is, eviction by following due process of law. Specifc reliance

placed on observations in para 8 of the said Judgment.

8] Learned AGP Shri. Kankal would support the orders passed by

Trial Courts below. According to him, the very entry of the petitioner

in the suit property is without following due process of law. He would 1 [(1989) 4 Supreme Court Cases 131]

10.3629.21 wp.doc

further claim that possession of the petitioner was never approved by

the State Government and that being so, status of the petitioner is

that of trespasser and that being so, petition is liable to be dismissed.

9] I have considered rival submissions.

10] Suit property in relation to which the petitioners are seeking

temporary injunction is admittedly owned by the respondent State

Government. The petitioner were permitted to use the said property

i.e. agricultural land for feld training, training centre and other

constructed area for classroom training and accommodation

pursuant to their request which was considered at local level. As far

as the temporary permission in favour of the petitioner for use of the

property for a period from 08/08/2007 to 31/03/2008 i.e. for a

period of 7 months is on purely temporary basis.

11] Allotment of government land is required to be dealt with in

accordance with provisions of Land Disposal Rules framed under

Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Petitioners have admittedly not

10.3629.21 wp.doc

taken recourse to such procedure as they have allotted land merely

for asking at the local level by the offcials of State Government

contrary to the provisions of Land Disposal Rules. Such permission

was only for a period of 7 months, however, petitioners continued to

occupy the premises for more than 30 years without there being any

valid permission in their favour.

12] The fact remains that property of the government is used by the

petitioners that too in violation to the Land Disposal Rules without

adequately compensating the Government. The Government

properties cannot be permitted to be allotted or used by the parties

like the petitioner in the manner in which petitioners have got the

permission which prima facie speaks of arbitrary act of allotment.

13] Section 53 of the Code speaks of summary eviction of persons

unauthorisedly occupying the land vesting in the Government. It is

the case of the petitioners that such proceedings are already initiated

against the petitioners at Collector level. As such, it could be inferred

from the aforesaid submissions that Respondents had already taken

10.3629.21 wp.doc

recourse to eviction of petitioners being unauthorised occupants.

14] In the aforesaid background, I hardly see any illegality in the

order passed by the learned District Judge as there is no prima facie

case in favour of the petitioners in view of the permission to occupy

having been coming to an end way back on 31/03/2008. Balance of

convenience also be not considered in favour of the petitioners as

petitioners were knowing that they can occupy the land only upto

31/03/2008. Rather, they used the land unauthorisedly for a period

of last more than 30 years.

15] In the aforesaid background, no case for consideration is made

out. Petition as such fails, stands dismissed.

                                     [NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]

                  Digitally signed
      IRESH       by IRESH
                  SIDDHARAM
      SIDDHARAM   MASHAL
      MASHAL      Date: 2021.08.17
                  14:33:16 +0530