Bombay High Court
Welfare Association For The Disabled ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its ... on 8 January, 2025
Author: A. S. Chandurkar
Bench: A. S. Chandurkar
2025:BHC-AS:1405-DB
44.WP.4765.2024 C.doc
Digitally signed
ANANT by ANANT
KRISHNA NAIK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
KRISHNA Date: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
NAIK 2025.01.13
20:22:00
+0530
WRIT PETITION NO.4765 OF 2024
Welfare Association for The Disabled, )
Miraj, Dist. Sangali, )
Through its President )
Mr. Hortikar Shrishail Kallappa )
Age: 58 Years, Occ: Service ) ...Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State Of Maharashtra, )
Through its Secretary, )
Revenue and Forest Department, )
Government of Maharashtra, )
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400032 )
2. The Collector, )
Sangli, Dist. Sangli )
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, )
Miraj Subdivision, Dist. Sangli. )
4. The Tahsildar, )
Jath, Tal. Jath, Dist. Sangli )
5. The Circle Officer, )
Jath, Tal. Jath, Dist. Sangli )
6. Taluka Inspector of Land Records )
At Jath, Tal. Jath, Dist. Sangli ) ...Respondents
****
Mr. D. G. Dhanure for the Petitioner.
Mr. K. S. Thorat, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents-State.
****
akn 1
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2025 22:28:14 :::
44.WP.4765.2024 C.doc
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR &
M. M. SATHAYE, JJ.
DATED : 8th JANUARY 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per M. M. SATHAYE, J):
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned counsel for
the parties.
2. The petitioner is a Public Charitable Trust, registered under
Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 and a Society registered under Societies
Registration Act, 1860. It is running an Educational Institute. The petition is
filed impugning a decision dated 04/10/2017 taken by the respondent no. 2
- Collector, Sangali by which the application of petitioner dated 09/09/2008
for the allotment of 40 R (1 Acre) portion of land from City Survey No. 889
situated at Taluka-Jath, District-Sangli, is rejected. The said land is sought by
the petitioner for constructing a residential school for the mentally
retarded / physically disabled students. A direction is also sought to the
respondent no. 2 to allot the said portion of land to the petitioner for the
said purpose.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that presently the
residential school for the disabled persons is being run on a rental land. He
invited this Court's attention to various recommendations/no objections, viz.
a Resolution dated 30/06/2008 passed by the Gram Panchayat, Jath
resolving to allot the said portion of land to the Petitioner and recording its
no objection, a No-objection report issued by Tahsildar, Jath dated
26/12/2008 addressed to the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Miraj Sub-
Division, Miraj, a communication dated 17/01/2009 issued by SDO, Miraj
Sub-Division, Miraj to the Collector, Sangli stating that there is no objection
44.WP.4765.2024 C.doc
for the allotment sought by the Petitioner and a further report dated
05/04/2011. It is further pointed out that the necessary measurement of the
land in question is also completed. The communication dated 05/07/2010
issued by SDO, Miraj Sub-Division, Miraj to the Collector, Sangli requesting
permission to proceed with the allotment, is also placed on record. Our
attention is drawn to GR dated 25/07/2007, which is regarding allotment of
the land to the blind and disabled persons on priority basis, as per provisions
of the Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection Of Rights
And Full Participation) Act, 1995, which shows that under its Category-4,
the allotment as sought by the petitioner is squarely provided. It is pointed
out that the said GR directs the Collectors as well as Divisional
Commissioners to act for such allotment to blind and disabled persons.
Record further shows that on 04/03/2015, the Tahsildar, Jath has again
recommended in its report to the SDO, a favourable opinion about
allotment.
4. The rejection under the impugned order is solely based on the
Government Resolution (GR) dated 12/07/2011. Perusal of said GR shows
that it is regarding prohibition of use of public lands / G ai-ran lands for any
other purposes and for removal of encroachments thereon. The said GR inter
alia provides that the Gai-ran lands meant for public use of the villagers
should not be allotted to any person or private institute or association, which
is apparently the reason for rejection under impugned order. However,
reading of the said GR nowhere indicates any bar in respect of land
allotment sought for blind or disabled persons. On the contrary, clause-4
thereof indicates that even existing encroachments on the public land / Gai-
ran lands which are being used for 'schools', amongst other public utilities
such as hospital etc., are excluded.
44.WP.4765.2024 C.doc
5. We therefore find that conjoint consideration of both the GRs dated
27/07/2007 and 12/07/2011 is needed. It is not pointed out to the Court
from any of the report, that the land sought to be allotted is a Gai-ran land.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in our view, the
impugned order, solely based on GR dated 12/07/2011 cannot be sustained.
The Collector is required to apply his mind to the purpose of allotment
sought for and the effect of GR dated 25/07/2007 and take a fresh decision.
Also, various recommendations as well as no objections issued by various
authorities such as Gram Panchayat, Tahsildar and SDO need to be
considered.
7. Therefore, in our view, the following order will meet the ends of
justice.
(a) The impugned order dated 04/10/2017 is set aside.
(b) Respondent No. 2 is directed to re-consider the petitioner's
application dated 09/09/2008 afresh in the light of both GRs dated
25/07/2007 & 12/07/2011 and all the earlier recommendations
made in that regard, in accordance with law.
(c) The Collector shall take decision within a period of 6 weeks of
receiving the copy of this order.
(d) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
(e) All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed
copy of this order.
(M. M. SATHAYE, J.) (A. S. CHANDURKAR, J)
