RUKHAMINI PANDURANG SANSTHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.9.1995 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Yavatmal in Special Civil Suit No.86/1994, thereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs/ appellants herein, for the reliefs of possession, mandatory injunction, came to be dismissed.

(2.) The suit property is the land bearing Plot No.1 in Nazul Sheet No.44 of village Pimpalgaon. One Shriram Yadavji Sonar was the original owner of land survey no.53, area 23.23 AcreGunthas (A.G.). On 19.2.1904 he executed a will bequeathing this entire field in favour of Rukhamini Pandurang Sansthan, at Yavatmal. Later on Rukhamini Pandurang Sansthan became a public trust under the Bombay Public Trust Act bearing registration No.A145/Yavatmal. Out of the total area of 23.23 A.G. one acre on SouthEastern corner was put to non agricultural use after obtaining necessary permission vide revenue case No.2/XXVIII/193031 which is the subject matter of the present suit. In the year 1962 vide land acquisition case No.5/65/6162Yavatmal, the land area 21.5 A.G. was acquired by the Government of Maharashtra for establishment of Industrial Training Institute [in short I.T.I... The award to this effect was passed on 30.3.1967. Possession of the same was handed over to the concerned authority. From the said field survey no.53, 18 gunthas land was acquired for Yavatmal Dhamangaon Road. Ultimately, the plaintiffs' ownership remained only over the suit plot. In the year 1991 the plaintiffs received a notice from the Collector, Yavatmal demanding nonagricultural assessment of Rs.26,000/ in respect of the suit plot. This made the office bearers of the trust to search for the records and also identify the suit plot. It was noticed that along with the land area of 21.5 A.G., the possession of the suit plot was also taken over by the defendants and made constructions over the same. After being satisfied from the record about ownership etc over the suit plot, notice under section 80 was issued to the defendants calling upon them to hand over the possession of the same. It was neither replied nor complied with. Therefore, the suit.

(3.) The defendants did not dispute the entity of the plaintiffs as a public trust. It was not disputed that under acquisition proceedings land area 21.5 A.G. was acquired out of the field survey no.53 for establishment of Industrial Training Institute. However, it was denied that one acre land i.e. the suit plot was converted to nonagricultural use. As regards the rest of the averments, the defendants showed ignorance.