BRAMHAPURI TALUKA HOCKEY ASSOCIATION Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged Resolution No. 4 dtd. 30/8/2023 passed by the Standing Committee of the Municipal Council, Bramhapuri by which it has been resolved to permit the respondent no.4 to utilise Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Playground belonging to the Municipal Council for celebration of Ganesh festival from 17/9/2023 to 30/9/2023.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that by an order dtd. 18/2/2021 passed by the Collector, Chandrapur, the said playground came to be transferred to the Municipal Council for being used as a playground for use of general public. The condition imposed was that it should be used only for the purpose for which it was allotted. A similar permission had been sought in the year 2022 but the same was refused by the Municipal Council on 11/7/2022 by observing that by permitting use of the said playground for celebration of such festival, inconvenience would be caused and the purpose for which the same was allotted to the Municipal Council would be affected for the aforesaid period. Moreover, the provisions of Sec. 22 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 and especially Rule 8 of the Land Disposal Rules, 1971 had not been complied with by the Municipal Council.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 and 3- Municipal Council submits that the petitioners in fact were the objectors in the proceedings conducted by the Collector in the matter of allotting the playground to the Municipal Council. The petitioners had raised an objection that the same should not be allotted to the Municipal Council and on the contrary had stated that the lease granted to Nevjabai Hitkarini Shikshan Sanstha, Bramhapuri should be renewed. Now the petitioners had taken a different stand in the matter. Attention was invited to the provisions of Sec. 37 A of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, the Act of 1966) to submit that temporary use for a period not exceeding twelve days at a time to have religious functions and public meetings was permissible. Such temporary use would not be deemed to be a change of user. It was further submitted that the Standing Committee had not been impleaded as a necessary party in the writ petition though it had passed Resolution dtd. 30/8/2023. It was further submitted that alternate arrangements had been made for general public to undertake regular activities that were being undertaken in the playground at an alternate place adjoining the said playground. Hence no prejudice would be caused with the allotment of the playground for the designated period. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.4 has adopted the submissions of the learned counsel for the Municipal Council.