VIJAYSINH PATWARDHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shrimant Chintamanrao Appasaheb Patwardhan was the first Ruler of the Sangli State. He constructed a temple in Sangli city and installed his family idol therein. For the purposes of maintenance and upkeep of the temple and the deity, the "Shri Ganpati Panchayat Sansthan" was formed. The first Ruler became the sole trustee of the Trust. On 25/11/1940, the Sangli Ganpati Panchayat Sansthan Act, 1940, (for short, ' the Act of 1940') came into force. It is the case of the Managing Trustee that after 15/08/1947, Sangli Santhan merged in the dominion of India. Prior thereto land bearing City Survey nos. 4, 5, 5/1 to 5/18 situated at Sangli was made available free of costs to the State of Sangli for running a civil hospital in the area. As per provisions of Sec. 19 (b) of the Act of 1940, when the purpose of appropriation of any land given by the Sansthan would come to an end, the said land would revert to the Sansthan as its property. It was also open for the Sansthan to claim compensation or rent for the same. According to the Managing Trustee, sometime in the year 2007 the requirement of the said land on which a civil hospital was being conducted ceased to survive and hence the Sansthan was entitled to its return in accordance with the first proviso to Sec. 19(b) of the Act of 1940. It is in this backdrop that the Managing Trustee through his power of attorney of holder has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking return of the aforesaid land to the Sansthan.

(2.) The Sansthan on 22/06/2007 made an application to the second respondent-Director, Health Services, Maharashtra State stating therein that land admeasuring about 35 acres was made available for running the civil hospital. Land admeasuring 15 acres on the southern side of the earlier existing civil hospital was lying vacant. On the premise that the said land was now not necessary for the civil hospital, a request was made to return possession of the said land to the Sansthan. On 01/08/2007, the District Civil Surgeon, Padmabhushan Dr. Vasantdada Patil Government Hospital, Sangli communicated its no objection to handover the said land by addressing a communication in that regard to the Director, Health Services, Maharashtra State. The Joint Director, Health Services on 04/01/2008 addressed a communication to the Additional Chief Secretary, Public Health Department stating therein that the District Civil Surgeon and the Deputy Director, Health Services had no objection to return the land to the Sansthan. In furtherance thereof, the Public Health Department on 12/03/2008 made certain enquiries with the Joint Director, Health Services as regards the actual land in use of the said Department. A further decision in this regard is however yet to be taken by the Additional Chief Secretary, Public Health Department. Since there has been no further progress in the matter, the Managing Trustee has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) Mr. S. G. Aney, the learned Senior Advocate for the Sansthan after referring to the documentary material on record as well as various provisions of the Act of 1940 submitted that undisputedly the land owned by the Sansthan was permitted to be utilised for running a civil hospital. The need for the said land came to an end as an area of about 35 acres had been made available by the Government of Maharashtra to Padmabhushan Dr. Vasantdada Patil Government Hospital, Sangli for setting up a civil hospital. The said civil hospital was now functioning at the 35 acres of land. As a result, about 15 acres of the land on the southern side remained unutilised. The provisions of Sec. 19(b) of the Act of 1940 made it clear that on the purpose on the appropriation coming to an end, the grant of land would come to an end and such land was liable to be returned back to the Sansthan. Referring to the judgment of the Division Bench in Sangli Nagarpalika, Sangli Vs. The Managing Trustee Shri Gannpati Panchayat Sansthan, Sangli represented by its Ganpati Manager, Shri Krishanaji Raghunath Ranade (Appeal No.206 of 1966 decided on 10/10/1974) it was submitted that the Sansthan continued to remain the absolute owner of the land that was granted by it for running the hospital and that it was never divested of its title. As the utility of that land had come to an end, it was liable to be returned to the Sansthan. The provisions of Article 372 of the Constitution of India were relied upon to contend that the provisions of the Act of 1940 continued to be "law in force" for being enforced. Referring to the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the first and second respondent, it was submitted that the shifting of the hospital from the land of the Sansthan to other alternate land was admitted. In the affidavit, it was stated that the land were required for providing facility of residence to Doctors and other supporting staff. Though it was stated that this would be an ancillary purpose, it was pointed out that the land could be utilised only for the purpose for which it was granted namely, running of the civil hospital and not for any other purpose even if such activity was treated as ancillary in nature. Reference was then made to the information received from the State authorities under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 wherein it was stated in clear terms that there was no proposal under consideration for operating the National Rural Health Mission Hospital at City Survey nos.4, 5, 5/1 to 5/18 at Sangli. The communications in that regard dtd. 06/02/2010 and 22/02/2010 were referred to. He also referred to the affidavit dtd. 21/08/2012 filed on behalf of the Civil Surgeon, Health Services and submitted that what was now proposed was establishment of a 100 bedded hospital for women at Sangli. On this premise, it was urged that if at all the State of Maharashtra desired to utilise the land for establishment of a different hospital, acquisition of such land would be necessary. The Sansthan through its Managing Trustee could not be required to indefinitely await the return of the land. To substantiate his contentions, the learned Senior Advocate placed reliance on the decisions in The State of Bombay Vs. Heman Santlal Alreja, AIR 1952 Bom 16, Tej Singh Rao Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 554 and M. Siddiq through legal representatives Vs. Mahant Suresh Das and others (2020) 1 SCC 1. On the aforesaid premise, it was urged that the State of Maharashtra through its Health Department be directed to return the aforesaid land to the Sansthan in terms of Sec. 19(b) of the Act of 1940.