Bombay High Court
Shri. Ramchandra Tukaram Ghodake vs Shri. Vijaysinh Patwardhan on 7 January, 2025
Author: A. S. Chandurkar
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
2025:BHC-AS:484-DB
RAMESHWAR
LAXMAN
DILWALE
2-WP-8434-2009 & IA-10042-2024 GROUP-JUDGEMENTdoc Rameshwar Dilwale
Digitally signed IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
by RAMESHWAR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
LAXMAN
DILWALE
Date: 2025.01.07 WRIT PETITION NO.8434 OF 2009
18:09:27 +0530
Shri. Vijaysinh Patwardhan, }
Sole Managing Trustee of }
Shri. Ganpati Panchayat Sansthan, Sangli, }
Presently residing at 4 }
Dakshinmurty Co-operative Housing Society }
10th Road J. B. P. D. Scheme, }
Mumbai 400 049 }
Through the Power of Attorney Holder : }
Shri. Somnath Ramling Kore, }
Age :39 years, Occ: Business, }
Residing at. Kore Plaza, Vishrambag, Sangli }
.. Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra }
[Summons to be served on the Learned }
Government Pleader appearing for }
State of Maharashtra under Order XXVII, }
Rule 4, of the Code of Civil }
Procedure, 1908] }
2. The Secretary, }
Health Department, }
Government of Maharashtra, }
Mantralay, Mumbai 400 032 }
3. The Commissioner, }
Sangli, Miraj & Kupwad City Corporation }
at Sangli }
4. The City Survey Officer, }
Kolhapur Road, Sangli Tal. Miraj }
Dist. Sangli }
.. Respondents
1/27
::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/01/2025 00:43:09 :::
2-WP-8434-2009 & IA-10042-2024 GROUP-JUDGEMENTdoc Rameshwar Dilwale
CIVIL APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.25314 OF 2011
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.8434 OF 2009
Shrimant VijaysinhaRaje Patwardhan }
Sole Managing Trustee of Shri Ganpati }
Panchayat Sansthan, Sangli. }
Presently R/o. Dakshin Maruti Co-op. }
Housing Society, 10th Road, JBPD Scheme, }
Mumbai-400 049. }
Through Power of Attorney Holder : }
Shri. Somnath Ramling Kore, }
Age :39 years, Occ: Business, }
Residing at. Kore Plaza, Vishrambag, }
Sangli 416 416 } .. Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra }
[Summons to be served on the Learned }
Government Pleader appearing for }
State of Maharashtra under Order XXVII, }
Rule 4, of the Code of Civil }
Procedure, 1908] }
2. The Secretary, }
Health Department, }
Government of Maharashtra, }
Mantralay, Mumbai 400 032 }
AND
Sangli Bar Association }
Having address at Civil Court, }
Rajwada Chowk, Sangli, }
By & through its Secretary }
Shri. Gajendra Surendra Kabadage, }
Age:36 years, Occ: Advocate,
Applicant-Intervener
2/27
::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/01/2025 00:43:09 :::
2-WP-8434-2009 & IA-10042-2024 GROUP-JUDGEMENTdoc Rameshwar Dilwale
CIVIL APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.25464 OF 2011
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.8434 OF 2009
Vijaysinh Patwardhan, }
Sole Managing Trustee of }
Shri. Ganpati Panchayat Sansthan, Sangli, }
Presently residing at 4, }
Dakshinmurty Co-operative Housing Society }
10th Road J. B. P. D. Scheme, }
Mumbai 400 049 }
Through Power of Attorney Holder : }
Shri. Somnath Ramling Kore, }
Age :39 years, Occ: Business, }
Residing at. Kore Plaza, Vishrambag, Sangli } .. Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra }
[Summons to be served on the Learned }
Government Pleader appearing for }
State of Maharashtra under Order XXVII, }
Rule 4, of the Code of Civil }
Procedure, 1908] }
2. The Secretary, }
Health Department, }
Government of Maharashtra, }
Mantralay, Mumbai 400 032 }..Respondents
AND
Shri Ramchandra Tukaram Ghodake, }
Age: 63 years, Occ: Social Service, }
R/o 359/2, Mhasoba Galli, }
Khan Bhag, Azad Chowk, Sangli }
Applicant-Intervener
ALONG WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.33339 OF 2016
IN
3/27
::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/01/2025 00:43:09 :::
2-WP-8434-2009 & IA-10042-2024 GROUP-JUDGEMENTdoc Rameshwar Dilwale
WRIT PETITION NO.8434 OF 2009
M/s. Parshwa Realty,
A partnership firm registered under the
Indian Partnership Act, 1932, having
Registered office at 'Poshish',
Lale Plot, Madhav Nagar Road,
Sangli 416 416 .. Applicant
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:
Shri Vijaysinh Patwardhan, }
Sole Managing Trustee of }
Shri. Ganpati Panchayat Sansthan, Sangli, }
Presently residing at 1 }
Dakshinmurty Co-operative Housing Society }
10th Road J. B. P. D. Scheme, }
Mumbai 400 049 }
Through Power of Attorney Holder : }
Shri. Somnath Ramling Kore, }
Age :39 years, Occ: Business, }
Residing at. Kore Plaza, Vishrambag, Sangli } .. Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra }
[Summons to be served on the Learned }
Government Pleader appearing for }
State of Maharashtra under Order XXVII, }
Rule 4, of the Code of Civil }
Procedure, 1908] }
2. The Secretary, }
Health Department, }
Government of Maharashtra, }
Mantralay, Mumbai 400 032 }
3. The Commissioner, }
Sangli, Miraj & Kupwad City Corporation }
at Sangli }
4. The City Survey Officer, }
Central Building, Vishram Baug }
Sangli Tal. Miraj Dist. Sangli }.. Respondents
4/27
::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/01/2025 00:43:09 :::
2-WP-8434-2009 & IA-10042-2024 GROUP-JUDGEMENTdoc Rameshwar Dilwale
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.10042 OF 2024
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.8434 OF 2009
Shri. Vijaysinh Patwardhan, }
Sole Managing Trustee of }
Shri. Ganpati Panchayat Sansthan, Sangli, }
Presently residing at 4 }
Dakshinmurty Co-operative Housing Society }
10th Road J. B. P. D. Scheme, }
Mumbai 400 049 }
Through the Power of Attorney Holder : }
Shri. Somnath Ramling Kore, }
Age :39 years, Occ: Business, }
Residing at. Kore Plaza, Vishrambag, Sangli }..Applicant
.. (Org. Petitioner)
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra }
[Summons to be served on the Learned }
Government Pleader appearing for }
State of Maharashtra under Order XXVII, }
Rule 4, of the Code of Civil }
Procedure, 1908] }
2. The Secretary, }
Health Department, }
Government of Maharashtra, }
Mantralay, Mumbai 400 032 }
3. The Commissioner, }
Sangli, Miraj & Kupwad City Corporation }
at Sangli }
4. The City Survey Officer, }
Kolhapur Road, Sangli Tal. Miraj }
Dist. Sangli }
.. Respondents
...
5/27
::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/01/2025 00:43:09 :::
2-WP-8434-2009 & IA-10042-2024 GROUP-JUDGEMENTdoc Rameshwar Dilwale
Mr. S. G. Aney, Senior Advocate (through VC) with Mr. Yogesh S.
Sankpal, Mr. Rishi Nirav Bhatt, Mr. Kishor Arjerao i/by Mr.
Makarand M. Kale, Advocates for the Petitioner.
Mr. N. V. Walawalkar, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. Shivaji A. Masal,
Advocate for Respondent No.3.
Mr. P. P. Kakade, Government Pleader with Mr. S. P. Kamble,
Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent-State of
Maharashtra.
Mr. Mitchelle J. Almeida, Advocate, i/by C.K. Legal, for the
Applicant-Intervener in CA(ST)/33339/2016.
...
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR &
RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ
Date on which the arguments concluded : 9 TH OCTOBER, 2024.
Date on which the judgment is delivered : 7 th JANUARY, 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER : A. S. CHANDURKAR, J)
1. Shrimant Chintamanrao Appasaheb Patwardhan was the
first Ruler of the Sangli State. He constructed a temple in Sangli
city and installed his family idol therein. For the purposes of
maintenance and upkeep of the temple and the deity, the "Shri
Ganpati Panchayat Sansthan" was formed. The first Ruler became
the sole trustee of the Trust. On 25/11/1940, the Sangli Ganpati
Panchayat Sansthan Act, 1940, (for short, ' the Act of 1940') came
into force. It is the case of the Managing Trustee that after
15/08/1947, Sangli Santhan merged in the dominion of India.
2-WP-8434-2009 & IA-10042-2024 GROUP-JUDGEMENTdoc Rameshwar Dilwale
Prior thereto land bearing City Survey nos. 4, 5, 5/1 to 5/18
situated at Sangli was made available free of costs to the State of
Sangli for running a civil hospital in the area. As per provisions of
Section 19 (b) of the Act of 1940, when the purpose of
appropriation of any land given by the Sansthan would come to an
end, the said land would revert to the Sansthan as its property. It
was also open for the Sansthan to claim compensation or rent for
the same. According to the Managing Trustee, sometime in the
year 2007 the requirement of the said land on which a civil
hospital was being conducted ceased to survive and hence the
Sansthan was entitled to its return in accordance with the first
proviso to Section 19(b) of the Act of 1940. It is in this backdrop
that the Managing Trustee through his power of attorney of holder
has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking return of the aforesaid land to the Sansthan.
2. The Sansthan on 22/06/2007 made an application to the
second respondent-Director, Health Services, Maharashtra State
stating therein that land admeasuring about 35 acres was made
available for running the civil hospital. Land admeasuring 15
acres on the southern side of the earlier existing civil hospital was
2-WP-8434-2009 & IA-10042-2024 GROUP-JUDGEMENTdoc Rameshwar Dilwale
lying vacant. On the premise that the said land was now not
necessary for the civil hospital, a request was made to return
possession of the said land to the Sansthan. On 01/08/2007, the
District Civil Surgeon, Padmabhushan Dr. Vasantdada Patil
Government Hospital, Sangli communicated its no objection to
handover the said land by addressing a communication in that
regard to the Director, Health Services, Maharashtra State. The
Joint Director, Health Services on 04/01/2008 addressed a
communication to the Additional Chief Secretary, Public Health
Department stating therein that the District Civil Surgeon and the
Deputy Director, Health Services had no objection to return the
land to the Sansthan. In furtherance thereof, the Public Health
Department on 12/03/2008 made certain enquiries with the Joint
Director, Health Services as regards the actual land in use of the
said Department. A further decision in this regard is however yet
to be taken by the Additional Chief Secretary, Public Health
Department. Since there has been no further progress in the
matter, the Managing Trustee has filed the present writ petition.
3. Mr. S. G. Aney, the learned Senior Advocate for the
Sansthan after referring to the documentary material on record as
2-WP-8434-2009 & IA-10042-2024 GROUP-JUDGEMENTdoc Rameshwar Dilwale
well as various provisions of the Act of 1940 submitted that
undisputedly the land owned by the Sansthan was permitted to be
utilised for running a civil hospital. The need for the said land
came to an end as an area of about 35 acres had been made
available by the Government of Maharashtra to Padmabhushan
Dr. Vasantdada Patil Government Hospital, Sangli for setting up a
civil hospital. The said civil hospital was now functioning at the
35 acres of land. As a result, about 15 acres of the land on the
southern side remained unutilised. The provisions of Section 19(b)
of the Act of 1940 made it clear that on the purpose on the
appropriation coming to an end, the grant of land would come to
an end and such land was liable to be returned back to the
Sansthan. Referring to the judgment of the Division Bench in
Sangli Nagarpalika, Sangli Vs. The Managing Trustee Shri Gannpati
Panchayat Sansthan, Sangli represented by its Ganpati Manager,
Shri Krishanaji Raghunath Ranade (Appeal No.206 of 1966 decided
on 10/10/1974) it was submitted that the Sansthan continued to
remain the absolute owner of the land that was granted by it for
running the hospital and that it was never divested of its title. As
the utility of that land had come to an end, it was liable to be
returned to the Sansthan. The provisions of Article 372 of the
2-WP-8434-2009 & IA-10042-2024 GROUP-JUDGEMENTdoc Rameshwar Dilwale
Constitution of India were relied upon to contend that the
provisions of the Act of 1940 continued to be "law in force" for
being enforced. Referring to the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of
the first and second respondent, it was submitted that the shifting
of the hospital from the land of the Sansthan to other alternate
land was admitted. In the affidavit, it was stated that the land
were required for providing facility of residence to Doctors and
other supporting staff. Though it was stated that this would be an
ancillary purpose, it was pointed out that the land could be
utilised only for the purpose for which it was granted namely,
running of the civil hospital and not for any other purpose even if
such activity was treated as ancillary in nature. Reference was
then made to the information received from the State authorities
under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 wherein
it was stated in clear terms that there was no proposal under
consideration for operating the National Rural Health Mission
Hospital at City Survey nos.4, 5, 5/1 to 5/18 at Sangli. The
communications in that regard dated 06/02/2010 and
22/02/2010 were referred to. He also referred to the affidavit
dated 21/08/2012 filed on behalf of the Civil Surgeon, Health
Services and submitted that what was now proposed was
2-WP-8434-2009 & IA-10042-2024 GROUP-JUDGEMENTdoc Rameshwar Dilwale
establishment of a 100 bedded hospital for women at Sangli. On
this premise, it was urged that if at all the State of Maharashtra
desired to utilise the land for establishment of a different hospital,
acquisition of such land would be necessary. The Sansthan
through its Managing Trustee could not be required to indefinitely
await the return of the land. To substantiate his contentions, the
learned Senior Advocate placed reliance on the decisions in The
State of Bombay Vs. Heman Santlal Alreja, AIR 1952 Bom 16, Tej
Singh Rao Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 554 and
M. Siddiq through legal representatives Vs. Mahant Suresh Das and
others (2020) 1 SCC 1. On the aforesaid premise, it was urged
that the State of Maharashtra through its Health Department be
directed to return the aforesaid land to the Sansthan in terms of
Section 19(b) of the Act of 1940.
4. Mr. P. P. Kakade, learned Government Pleader for the
respondent nos.1 and 2 opposed the writ petition. He referred to
the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the said respondents and
submitted that notwithstanding the fact that the hospital
established earlier had shifted to other premises, the land was
being utilised for ancillary purpose like providing for the residence
2-WP-8434-2009 & IA-10042-2024 GROUP-JUDGEMENTdoc Rameshwar Dilwale
of Doctors and other supporting staff. There was a need for the
said land since it was proposed to be put to use for providing
health facilities to the general public. Since the need for the said
land continued, it was submitted that no relief could be granted to
the petitioner.
5. Mr. N. V. Walawalkar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for
the third respondent-the Commissioner, Sangli, Miraj and
Kupwad Municipal Corporation at the outset submitted that the
averments made in the writ petition had been affirmed by the
power of attorney holder of the Managing Trustee. On the basis of
a development agreement dated 18/09/2007, the power of
attorney holder was claiming interest in the said land. Since the
writ petition was not being prosecuted by the Managing Trustee
on behalf of the Sansthan, no relief whatsoever was liable to be
granted. Reference was also made to the provisions of Section 7(b)
of the Act of 1940 to submit that in support of the case of the
Sansthan, the pleadings ought to have been verified by the
Managing Trustee. In absence of any legal necessity on behalf of
the Sansthan being pointed out, the writ petition as filed on its
behalf through the Managing Trustee was not liable to be
2-WP-8434-2009 & IA-10042-2024 GROUP-JUDGEMENTdoc Rameshwar Dilwale
entertained. It was further submitted that the question as to
whether the need of the said land from City Survey nos.4, 5, 5/1
to 5/18 survived or not was a disputed question that could not be
adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The Sansthan ought to invoke the
civil remedy for seeking the reliefs as sought in the writ petition. It
was then submitted that under provisions of Section 19 of the Act
of 1940, it was open for the Managing Trustee to claim
compensation for the use of aforesaid land. Since such relief could
be claimed by the Sansthan by approaching the civil Court, no
writ of mandamus could be issued in its favour. The learned
Senior Advocate sought to distinguish the judgment of the
Division Bench in Sangli Nagarpalika, Sangli (supra) and
submitted that the Sansthan was not entitled to any relief
whatsoever. The writ petition was therefore liable to be dismissed.
6. In rejoinder, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner
submitted that the land in question had been handed over to the
Government for running a hospital and that no land had been
given to the Municipal Corporation. If at all the Municipal
Corporation had need of any land, it could approach the State
Government in that regard but it could not claim any interest in
2-WP-8434-2009 & IA-10042-2024 GROUP-JUDGEMENTdoc Rameshwar Dilwale
the present land. The writ petition as filed sought enforcement of
the legal rights of the Managing Trustee on behalf of the Sansthan
and merely on the ground that compensation could also be
claimed, the same could not be a reason for denying just relief to
the Sansthan. The execution of a power of attorney by the
Managing Trustee for development of the land could not be a
reason to deprive the Sansthan of any relief.
Inviting attention to the affidavit dated 09/09/2011 filed on
behalf of the petitioner, it was submitted that the Sansthan was
willing to make available alternate accommodation for existing
staff members of the hospital who were residing on a portion of
the aforesaid land. Such arrangement could be made free of costs
elsewhere at the other land of the Sansthan as per the carpet area
approved by the State of Maharashtra. Since the Act of 1940 was
a pre-constitutional enactment it had its due weightage and it
ought to be honoured in its true spirit as held by the Supreme
Court in paragraph 986 of its decision in M. Siddiq through legal
representatives (supra). It was thus submitted that the petitioner
was entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
2-WP-8434-2009 & IA-10042-2024 GROUP-JUDGEMENTdoc Rameshwar Dilwale
7. An affidavit in reply has been filed by Mr. Vishwanath
Tukaram Shinde, Incharge City Survey Officer, Sangli
wherein it was stated that after perusing the revenue records
at the City Survey Office it was found that in 1928 an
enquiry had been conducted with regard to the subject land.
The name of the Government was shown as occupant by way
of ‛L' tenure in view of provisions of Bombay Land Revenue
Code, 1879. The same was published in the Government
Gazette on 07/03/1930. In the property register, against the
subject land at City Survey nos.4, 5, 5/1 to 5/18 the
remark "appropriated under Section 19 of Shri Ganpati
Panchayat Sansthan Act" was recorded in Column 14. The
said entry was certified on the basis of an order dated
23/11/1959 passed by the Collector Sangli. The aforesaid
property was converted from ‛L' tenure to ‛C' tenure on
15/02/1963. It is further stated that 'C' tenure would mean
the properties belonging to the Sansthan. The revenue record
was maintained by the Revenue Department under the Office
of the Collector till 31/05/1981. Thereafter the record was
being maintained by the Office of the land records.
2-WP-8434-2009 & IA-10042-2024 GROUP-JUDGEMENTdoc Rameshwar Dilwale
8. Civil Application (Stamp) No.25464 of 2011 has been
filed by Mr. Ramchandra Tukaram Ghodake seeking leave to
intervene in the writ petition. In the application, it is stated
that the applicant has been rendering social service for many
years and is a responsible citizen of Sangli city. It is stated
that the subject land stands vested in the Government of
Maharashtra and therefore the Sansthan is not entitled to
any relief.
Civil Application (Stamp) No.25314 of 2011 has been
filed by the Sangli Bar Association through its Secretary
seeking leave to intervene in the writ petition in the
application. It is stated that one building standing on the
subject land had been allotted to the Sangli Bar Association
for accommodating various Advocates who were its Members.
The Association also opposes the grant of any relief to the
petitioner.
Civil Application (Stamp) No.33339 of 2016 has been
filed by M/s. Parshwa Realty through its partners. It also
seeks leave to be added as party to the writ petition in view of
the fact that the partnership firm had purchased the subject
land by virtue of registered sale deed dated 28/09/2010. It is
2-WP-8434-2009 & IA-10042-2024 GROUP-JUDGEMENTdoc Rameshwar Dilwale
therefore stated that the partnership firm is a necessary
party to the present proceedings.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length
and with their assistance we have also perused the documentary
material on record. We have thereafter given thoughtful
consideration to the issue that falls for consideration. Land from
City Survey nos.4, 5, 5/1 to 5/18 is admittedly owned by the
Sansthan and much prior to independence said land had been
handed over to the State of Sangli for running a public hospital
thereon. After the State of Sangli merged with the dominion of
India, the said land was made over to the State of Maharashtra.
The record indicates that thereafter the State of Maharashtra
acquired about 35 acres land and the civil hospital that was being
run on the aforesaid land was shifted there. The newly located
hospital was named Padmabhushan Dr. Vasantdada Patil
hospital. The fact that the earlier Government hospital was no
longer being run from the aforesaid land is clear from the
communication dated 01/08/2007 issued by the District Civil
Surgeon of the Government Hospital as well as the
communication dated 04/01/2008 issued by the Joint Director,
2-WP-8434-2009 & IA-10042-2024 GROUP-JUDGEMENTdoc Rameshwar Dilwale
Health Services. It is on this premise that the Managing Trustee
submitted a proposal behalf of the Sansthan dated 22/06/2007 to
the competent authority seeking to invoke its right under the first
proviso to Section 19(b) of the Act of 1940.
10. It was not urged by the State of Maharashtra that the
Act of 1940 had lost its legal effect being a pre-constitutional
piece of legislation. The Act of 1940 being "law in force"
enacted before the commencement of the Court of India,
Article 372 recognises its continuation as an existing law.
The Sansthan is thus entitled to rely upon the provisions of
the Act of 1940 for seeking appropriate relief.
11. To consider the entitlement of the Managing Trustee of the
Sansthan to any relief based on the provisions of the Act of 1940,
it would be necessary to refer to Section 19 which reads as
under:-
"19. (a) The grant of villages of Sangli &
Sangliwadi made by Shrimant Chintamanrao
Appasaheb the First Ruler of Sangli has been and
is hereby recognised as a grant of the soil viz.
जल, तरु, काष्ट, पाषाण, नि धी, नि क्षेप and all
(b) But all appropriations of land from these two
2-WP-8434-2009 & IA-10042-2024 GROUP-JUDGEMENTdoc Rameshwar Dilwale
village made by the Sangli state and by the
Sangli Municipality for a public purpose will
stand good and will not be called in question by
the Managing Trustee at any time nor will the
Sansthan Trust be entitled to claim any
compensation on account of such appropriations.
Provided that when that present purpose of the
appropriations comes to an end or the direct control
or management goes out of the hands of the State or
the Municipality or from the former to the latter or
vice versa the sites will revert to the Shree Ganpati
Panchayatan Sansthan as its property or the
aforesaid Sansthan may claim compensation or rent
therefor as thinks fit.
This proviso however would not apply to the
land of the Sansthan which is already acquired or
as may be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act,
No. 1 of 1894 as applied to the Sangli State."
Section 19(a) recognises the nature of grant made from villages of
Sangli and Sangliwadi by the first Ruler of Sangli State. Under
Section 19(b) such appropriation of land from the aforesaid
villages when made for a public purpose was to stand good and
was not liable to be called in question by the Managing Trustee at
any time. However, under the first proviso to Section 19(b) when
the purpose of the appropriation would come to an end, the land
would revert to the Sansthan as its property. The said proviso
however would not apply to land that was already acquired or
2-WP-8434-2009 & IA-10042-2024 GROUP-JUDGEMENTdoc Rameshwar Dilwale
would be acquired under provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894.
12. The provisions of Section 19 of the Act of 1940 were the
subject matter of consideration in Sangli Nagarpalika, Sangli
(supra) by a Division Bench of this Court. The facts of the said
case indicate that Sangli Nagarpalika undertook activities of
quarring in the land owned by the Sansthan. Since these activities
were undertaken without converting the agricultural land into
non-agricultural use, there was a correspondence between the
parties. The Sangli Nagarpalika took the stand that it was a public
body and that the quarring activities were undertaken for the
purposes of development of the city. It therefore sought exemption
from the payment of royalty. This was refused by the Sansthan
which thereafter filed a suit for recovery of the amount of non-
agricultural assessment and royalty. The trial Court held that the
Sansthan was the grantee of the land as well as of the sub soil of
all the land. It was held entitled to non-agricultural assessment as
well as the amount of royalty. An appeal was preferred by the
Sangli Nagarpalika wherein the provisions of Section 19 were
considered by the Division Bench. In that context, the Division
Bench observed in paragraphs 25 and 27 as under :-
2-WP-8434-2009 & IA-10042-2024 GROUP-JUDGEMENTdoc Rameshwar Dilwale
25. In our view clause (b) and the proviso must be
read together to understand the real meaning thereof.
In the opening part of the clause (b) there is a reference
to appropriations of land from those two villages
'made' by the Sangli State and by the Sangli
Municipality for a public purpose. Prima facie therefore
this seems to be a reference to what is already done or
what is an existing appropriation at the date of the
passing of this Act. The further reference is that these
Appropriations will not be called in question by the
Managing Trustee at any time nor will the Sansthan
Trust be entitled to claim any compensation on account
of such appropriation.
27. Against this background if the proviso is rend, it is
clear that it refers to 'present purpose' being over at
some time. The proviso says that when the present
purpose of the appropriations comes to an end or the
direct control or management goes out of the hands of
the State or the Municipality certain consequences
should follow. The land or the property belonging to
the Sangthan from these two villages is appropriated
for the time being for the use of the State or for the
Municipality and that was a particular purpose then
existing. When that 'present purpose' came to and end
or the control of that appropriation came out of the
hands of the State or the Municipality the sites have to
revert back to the Ganpati Panchayatan Sansthan as
its property or the Sansthan may claim compensation
or the rent thereof as it thinks fit. This means that the
ownership and title of the Sansthan in respect of those
properties is maintained all along, but the actual
physical use thereof by the Sansthan is kept in
abeyance and the Municipality and State of Sangli are
permitted to make use of that property. When that
present purpose comes to an end and neither the State
2-WP-8434-2009 & IA-10042-2024 GROUP-JUDGEMENTdoc Rameshwar Dilwale
nor the Municipality any more require this site, it will
revert back to the Sansthan. At that stage the
Sansthan can take back the property and make use or
refuse to take back or claim compensation or the rent
for the user. If those public purposes which are
described in those sections continue adinfinitus there
would be no question of either making payment or
reversion of the property. As and when the 'present
purpose' comes to an end what should happen to the
appropriated property is laid down by the proviso. We
do not read in this clause any provisions by which the
Sangli Municipality at any future date can take over
any land for permissible public purpose and is still
exempt from making any payment to the Shri Ganpati
Panchayatan Sansthan. We do not find any support in
this proviso to accept the argument of Shri Pratap. On
the contrary the second proviso to that clause says
that this proviso, which means the earlier proviso,
would not apply to the land of the Sansthan which is
already acquired or as may be acquired under the
Land Acquisition Act, No.1 of 1894, as applied to the
Sangli State, Clause (c) then provides that any further
acquisition in the villages by the State for public
purposes will be on the basis of the Land Acquisition
Act in force in the State. Where acquisition is
contemplated whether it is in the past or future the
provisions of Land Acquisition Act of 1894 are made
applicable. Where some appropriation is made for
public purpose, a provision has been made that that
will be a free user until 'the present purpose' is being
served. In this view of the matter we are unable to
accept the argument of Shri Pratap in that behalf also.
(emphasis supplied by us)
13. The aforesaid discussion in clear terms recognises the rights
2-WP-8434-2009 & IA-10042-2024 GROUP-JUDGEMENTdoc Rameshwar Dilwale
of the Sansthan as available under Section 19(b) of the Act of
1940. On the grant of land by the Sansthan, it was not divested
of its ownership in the said land. The grant was only for "the
present purpose of appropriation" and on such present purpose of
appropriation coming to an end, the land has to revert to the
Sansthan. We are in complete agreement with the aforesaid view
and it is on this premise that the rights of the Sansthan would
have to be considered.
Undisputedly, the land from City Survey nos.4, 5, 5/1 to
5/18 owned by the Sansthan had been handed over to the Sangli
State for running a public hospital. After the existing public
hospital was shifted from the aforesaid land, the "present purpose
of the appropriation" came to an end. Thus a right accrued in
favour of the Sansthan to seek return of the said land under the
first proviso to Section 19(b) of the Act of 1940. That the Health
Department was conscious of the Sanstha's right is evident from
the communication addressed on its behalf to the State of
Maharashtra. Merely for the reason that the said land was now
proposed to be utilised for providing other health services to
members of the public would not mean that the "present purpose
of the appropriation" would continue. The said provision does not
2-WP-8434-2009 & IA-10042-2024 GROUP-JUDGEMENTdoc Rameshwar Dilwale
recognise any perpetual appropriation especially when the
purpose for which such land was initially granted had admittedly
come to an end. The Sansthan not having been divested of its title,
we are of the considered opinion that a right has accrued in
favour of the Managing Trustee of the Sansthan to seek reversion
of the aforesaid land to the Sansthan under the first proviso to
Section 19(b) of the Act of 1940.
14. We also find merit in the submission made on behalf of the
petitioner that the Municipal Corporation cannot seek to put-forth
its need for the said land by contending that some other medical
facilities are sought to be provided therein. The grant of land was
not made to it. While it is open for the Municipal Corporation to
undertake such activities, the same has to be pursuant to either
some allotment of land to it or after acquiring land in accordance
with law. We also do not find that the Sansthan ought to be
denied relief on the ground that the writ petition is being
prosecuted by the Managing Trustee through his power of attorney
holder. The locus of the power of attorney holder is based on the
development agreement entered into between the Sansthan and
the developer. For the present purpose, it is not necessary for us
2-WP-8434-2009 & IA-10042-2024 GROUP-JUDGEMENTdoc Rameshwar Dilwale
to enter into the arena as to whether there is any legal necessity
for the Sansthan to have a development agreement as the
authorities under the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1951 are
empowered to go into that aspect if the need arises.
15. Insofar as the civil applications seeking leave to
intervene in the writ petition are concerned, we are of the
view that the presence of the applicants, Mr. Ramchandra
Tukaram Ghodake and the Sangli Bar Association through
its Secretary in the present writ petition would not be of
much assistance considering the provisions of Section 19 (b)
of the Act of 1940. The Sangli Bar Association through its
Secretary can approach the concerned respondents and can
seek allotment of appropriate space for accommodating its
Members. The prayers made in the said Civil Applications
therefore are not granted.
16. Coming to the relief that can be granted to the Sansthan, we
find that its right to seek return of the appropriation under the
proviso to Section 19(b) of the Act of 1940 stands established. We
are of the considered opinion that in terms of Section 19(b) of the
2-WP-8434-2009 & IA-10042-2024 GROUP-JUDGEMENTdoc Rameshwar Dilwale
Act of 1940 a right has accrued in favour of the Sansthan to seek
reversion of the land that was granted by the Sansthan for the
purposes of running a civil hospital. The title of the Sansthan
having not being lost, the only option available with the State
Government is to acquire that land in case it requires the same for
a public purpose. A decision in that regard would have to be taken
by the State Government. As regards a small portion of the said
land occupied by members of the staff of the erstwhile
Government hospital, the Sansthan has indicated its willingness
to make available alternate accommodation for members of the
staff who are occupying a portion of the said land elsewhere at its
own costs. That would be a matter to be worked out between the
Sansthan and the Health Department of the Government of
Maharashtra. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the following
directions are issued:-
i) The Government of Maharashtra through its
Health Department shall within a period of three months
from today return land from City Survey nos.4, 5, 5/1 to
5/18 at Sangli to the Sansthan that was the subject
matter of grant under Section 19(1) of the Act of 1940. In
case the State Government is desirous of retaining the
2-WP-8434-2009 & IA-10042-2024 GROUP-JUDGEMENTdoc Rameshwar Dilwale
said land for any public purpose, it would be open for the
State Government to acquire the said land in accordance
with law.
ii) The statement made on behalf of the Sansthan
in the affidavit dated 09/09/2011 that the Sansthan was
willing to make an alternate arrangement for members of
the staff who are presently occupying a portion of the
aforesaid land elsewhere is accepted. The Managing
Trustee through his authorised representative and the
Chief Secretary, Public Health Department Government of
Maharashtra shall work out the modalities in that regard
within a period of eight weeks from today.
17. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no
order as to costs. The Interim applications are also disposed
of.
[ RAJESH S. PATIL, J. ] [ A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. ]
