VARCO REALITIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for rival parties.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by orders dated 10/02/2020 and 30/06/2020, passed by the respondent No.2 - Superintendent of Land Records, Wardha. The principal challenge raised to the basic order dated 10/02/2020, on behalf of the petitioner, is that there has been gross violation of principles of natural justice and that on this short ground the said order deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that if the said order is set aside, the subsequent order dated 30/06/2020, would be rendered redundant and it would stand set aside on that basis itself. It is contended that the impugned order dated 10/02/2020, is clearly adverse to the interest of the petitioner and in the absence of any notice being issued to the petitioner, the said order stands vitiated. Apart from this, it is submitted that the order could not have been passed while purportedly exercising appellate power under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.

(3.) The brief facts leading up to filing of the present Writ Petition are that according to the petitioner, it is a Company registered under the Companies Act , 1956, engaged in the development of infrastructure, construction and land development. It was in the process of purchasing 14 acres of land belonging to respondent No.5 - Trust of which the respondent No.6 claims to be the Secretary. It is submitted that on 30/10/2015, the land in question was purchased by the petitioner - Company for a valuable consideration of about Rs.28 Crores from the respondent No.5 - Trust. It is the case of the petitioner - Company that during the process of purchase of the said land, respondent No.5 - Trust and respondent No.6 - Trustee of the said Trust had co-operated with the petitioner - Company and no objection in respect of the same was ever raised. It is submitted that, subsequently when obstruction was sought to be created by respondent nos.5 and 6 in enjoyment of the said property by the petitioner - Company, it was constrained to file a suit for permanent injunction.