INDIAN FARMERS P LTD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Counsel appearing for the parties. There is chequered history which has led to the filing of this petition. However, suffice it to observe that the Additional Collector had sent a communication dated 23rd March, 1981 to the petitioners purported to be an order of eviction. That was challenged before this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 1975 of 1985. That writ petition was allowed on 31st July, 1991. This Court directed the collector to re-examine the matter by treating the said communication dated march 23/1981 as show cause notice and pass necessary orders after affording fair opportunity to the petitioners. Consequent thereto, the Collector proceeded with the inquiry against the petitioners and passed order on 26th april, 1993 terminating the lease of the petitioners. That order was, however, challenged by the petitioners before the Additional Commissioner which appeal was allowed on 30th March, 1994 by setting aside the order passed by the Collector. After this order further show cause notice was received by the petitioners some time in September 1997 indicating that the State Government was inclined to suo motu reconsider the order passed by the Additional commissioner. The petitioners were informed that the said proceedings were slated to be heard immediately at a short notice of live days. In the circumstances, the petitioners in turn requested the State Government to defer the hearing because the notice was too short to respond thereto. The petitioners apprehended that the State Government would proceed ex parte against the petitioner for which reason the present petition came to be filed. When this writ petition was pending and was taken up for admission, statement was made on behalf of the State Government that the order under section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code has already been passed by the Minister (Revenue) on 18th May, 1998. In the circumstances, the petitioners with the liberty granted by this Court amended the writ petition so as to challenge the order passed by the Minister dated 18th May, 1998. When this writ petition was pending, another show cause notice came to be issued by the Collector on 19th March, 2002 calling upon the petitioners to show cause why the lease granted in their favour should not be cancelled on the ground that the petitioners had contravened the conditions of lease by mortgaging the Government property for a loan to a bank. In the circumstances, the petitioners obtained leave of this Court to challenge even the fresh notice issued by the Collector dated 19th March, 2002. Accordingly, the petition has been amended and even that show cause notice is the subject matter of challenge in this petition.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the petitioners were granted reclamation lease in respect of lands admeasuring about 114 acres, 18 gunthas and 4 annas situated at village Marve, Malwani and Akse. It is not necessary to elaborate all the conditions of the said lease except to mention that the petitioners were expected to reclaim the entire land within 20 years from the date of commencement of the grant, which was 1st August, 1950 and shall maintain such reclamation during the residue of the term of 999 years of lease period and to keep the said land fit for cultivation or for agricultural purpose. The aforesaid document dated 23rd March, 1981, which is the basis on which the present proceedings have been initiated against the petitioners and directed to be treated as show cause notice by this Court, called upon the petitioners to show cause why the lease should not be determined as the petitioners had contravened the conditions of lease. That aspect was considered by the Collector in his order dated 26th April, 1994 and the Collector has recorded the finding against the petitioners that the petitioners have contravened the conditions of lease. As mentioned earlier, the petitioners carried the matter in appeal before the additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner by a detailed judgment and order dated 30th March, 1994 has reversed each of the findings recorded by the Collector and found as of fact that the petitioners had not contravened any of the conditions of lease. On that basis the appeal preferred by the petitioners came to be allowed. Almost after lapse of more than three years, the State Government by invoking the powers under section 257 of the code, called upon the petitioners to show cause why the order passed by the additional Commissioner should not be cancelled. The action of the State government was based on the report submitted by the Collector to the State government in that behalf, as is stated in the impugned order passed by the minister, which reads thus:

(3.) ON the basis of that report show cause notice was issued to the petitioners, but as mentioned earlier only short notice of only five days was given to the petitioners. The petitioners obviously requested for some time. But no response was received from the Minister with regard to the request for grant of time. The petitioners in the circumstances approached this Court by way of present writ petition and while this writ petition was filed the order came to be passed by the Minister (Revenue) on 18th May, 1998. On fair and careful reading of the said order the reasons which weighed with the Minister to pass the impugned order as can be deciphered are as follows: