Naresh Jiyaldas Nandwani And ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Its ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4835 Bom

 Judgment                                 1                       W.P.No.954.2021.odt


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

                           WRIT PETITION NO. 954 OF 2021


 1)       Naresh Jiyaldas Nandwani,
          Aged about 45 years, Occu. - Business,

 2)       Thakurdas S/o Jiyaldas Nandwani,
          Aged about 56 years, Occu. - Business,
          R/o Morshi, Tq. Morshi,
          Dist. Amravati.
                                                          .... PETITIONERS

                                   // VERSUS //

 1)       State of Maharashtra,
          through its Chief Secretary,
          Forest Department,
          Mantralaya, Mumbai,

 2)       State of Maharashtra,
          through its Chief Secretary,
          Revenue Department,
          Mantralaya, Mumbai.

 3)       Director of Town Planning,
          Nagar Palika Prashashan, Directorate,
          New Administrative Building,
          In front of Sachivalaya, Mumbai.

 4)       Assistant Director,
          Town Planning, Vidharbha Region,
          Old Sachivalaya Building, Nagpur.

 5)       Divisional Commissioner,
          Amravati Division, Amravati.

 6)       The Collector,
          Amravati.

 7)       Chief Officer, Nagar Parishad, Morshi,
          Tq. Morshi, Dist. Amravati.



::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2021                   ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2021 00:31:49 :::
  Judgment                                 2                         W.P.No.954.2021.odt



 8)       Sub Divisional Officer,
          Morshi, Tq. Morshi, Dist. Amravati.
                                               .... RESPONDENTS
  ______________________________________________________________
      Shri Ajay K. Madane, Advocate for the petitioners.
      Shri N. R. Patil, A.G.P. for the respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 to 6 & 8.
 ______________________________________________________________


                           CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                                   AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.

DATED : 17.03.2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.)

1. Hearing is conducted through Video Conferencing and all

the learned Advocates agreed that the audio and visual quality was

proper.

2. Heard Shri A. K. Madane, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Shri N. R. Patil, learned A.G.P. who appears by waiving

notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 to 6 and 8. There is no need

to issue notice to respondent No.7 as no relief has been claimed against

respondent No.7.

3. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

Judgment 3 W.P.No.954.2021.odt

4. The petitioners submit that they have purchased a piece of

land situated in Survey No.26, Mouza Morshi, District Amravati from

one Tulshiram Bachei Kuril and the purchase was in respect of the

leasehold rights temporarily granted by the Revenue Authorities to said

Tulshiram. The petitioners have filed on record copy of the original

grant of leasehold rights temporarily granted to said Tulshiram for the

period of 01.04.1967 to 31.03.1968. The petitioners have also filed

along with this petition some documents showing renewal of the lease

from time to time and last renewal was up to 31.07.1981. The

petitioners have not filed along with the petition any further renewals

but, learned counsel for the petitioner orally submits that as far as he

remembers, the last renewal of the lease had taken place in the year

2017 and thereafter, the lease has not been renewed. It is the

contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that now the

petitioners are in possession of the said piece of land and their

possession is being threatened by respondent Nos.5 to 8 as respondent

No.7 has issued a show cause notice to the petitioners on 18.06.2020,

calling upon them to vacate the land which is said to be under their

illegal occupation.

5. On consideration of various documents filed on record, we

are of the opinion that the petitioners do not have any right in the

present case to agitate upon the proposed action of vacating of the land

Judgment 4 W.P.No.954.2021.odt

by them. The petitioners, as per the document which is titled as " fodzh

ikorh" (Sale receipt), have acquired the leasehold rights in the piece of

land bearing Plot No.21 and it is not known whether this plot No.21 is

situated in Survey No.26 or not, which was originally allotted on

leasehold basis to Tulshiram Bachei Kuril for a temporary period of

time. Then, this sale receipt is executed on stamp paper of Rs.100/-

and is an unregistered document. Such a document, therefore, would

not transfer the immovable property of a value which was more than

Rs.100/-. Then, the petitioners themselves admit that their application

for transfer of temporary lease to them is pending with the Revenue

Authorities. With such an admission of the petitioners, it cannot be said

that the petitioners would have any right in law to seek a direction or

injunction against any authority so that no coreceive action of vacating

of the land could be taken by the authority.

6. By the show cause notice dated 18.06.2020, the petitioners

have been called upon to vacate the land within seven days and the

land stated to be under illegal occupation of the petitioner is not the

one situated in Survey No.26, but the one which belongs to the

Municipal Council, Morshi - respondent No.7. Whatever documents on

which the petitioner are placing reliance, are the documents which

refer to lease of a Government land and not of the land belonging to

Judgment 5 W.P.No.954.2021.odt

Municipal Council. The petitioners do not claim in any manner that

they are occupying any land belonging to Municipal Council. In such a

case, the petitioners would have to give reply to the Municipal Council

making their stand clear in the matter. The petitioners, however, have

not given any reply to the Municipal Council, Morshi. In fact, the

petitioner No.2 had filed an identical writ petition claiming identical

reliefs except for seeking of temporary stay to the show cause notice

dated 18.06.2020 in the year 2020. That petition was Writ Petition

No.2737 of 2020 and the petition was disposed of by an order passed

on 02.11.2020 giving liberty to the petitioners to file appropriate reply

before Municipal Council, Morshi. But, the petitioners have not done

so. The petitioners have also not challenged the legality and validity of

the show cause notice dated 18.06.2020 and only sought temporary

stay to this notice. Apart from what is stated above, this petition

involves disputed questions of fact and this would be an additional

ground for not taking cognizance of this petition by this Court.

7. In the circumstances, we find that this petition is not

tenable at law and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

            (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)            (SUNIL B. SHUKRE J.)

 Kirtak