SONBEHARI V NIMBKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is in the nature of a public interest litigation whereby the petitioners are challenging allotment of Government land in favour of the respondent No. 4, who is the wife of the respondent No. 5, who was at the relevant time a Member of Legislative Assembly. The controversy in this petition thus centres around the allotment of land admeasuring 8,000 sq. ft. out of Survey No. 6470, situated at Phaltan, District Satara.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioners in the petition that the petitioners are well known citizens and are engaged in public life; that the petitioner No. 1 is well known for his agricultural research; that the petitioner No. 2 is a freedom fighter and has been honoured by the Central Government and the State Government, that the petitioner No. 3 is a President of Mahila Samajik Parishad, Phaltan and has been taking active part in various social, educational, political activities for last 20 years and in her capacity as a President of the said Mahila Samajik Parishad, she has been seeking allotment of the land in question for the said Institution and that the petitioner No. 4 is a secretary of Vidyaprasarak Sanstha, Phaltan and is connected with other institutes like I. T. I. , Phaltan and several newspapers. It is the grievance of the petitioner in the petition that the said land being a very valuable and strategic Government land, had been allotted in the name of one Yashodabai Shamrao Patil, but in fact, subsequently the same was allotted/transferred in the name of the respondent No. 4 who is, as stated earlier, the wife of the then M. L. A. The petitioners had made several attempts to persuade the Government to cancel the said allotment which, according to the petitioners, was illegal and fraudulent and to the extent that questions were asked on the floor of the Legislative Council to which, although the Government was aware of the manner in which the said allotment had taken place, the Government refused to cancel the same. It is the petitioners case that the said Yashodabai, being a widow of a freedom fighter, was allotted the said land by allotment letter dated 30th November, 1983. However, she had expired on 2nd June, 1983, i. e. more than five months prior to the allotment and that somehow, the said land was transferred in favour of the respondent No. 4, being a daughter of the said Yashodabai. The petitioners although tried their best to get more information regarding the original allotment in favour of the said deceased Yashodabai and subsequent allotment/transfer in favour of the respondent No. 4 which was done by an order dated 8th November, 1984, they could not get any information from the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. It is the contention of the petitioners that the said allotment is contrary to the provisions of law, and therefore, illegal and mala fide. It is the further contention of the petitioners that as the respondent No. 5 was the then M. L. A. , he has, by abusing his official position, managed to grab the said piece of land although the said respondent No. 5 and the respondent No. 4 have large pieces of land with them in the vicinity, the particulars whereof are given in para 23 of the petition. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have disputed the challenge to the legality of the said allotment in favour of Yashodabai and allotment/transfer in favour of the respondent No. 4 and have on affidavit stated that the allotment in favour of Yashodabai was done by virtue of section 40 of the Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and Rule 28 (2) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Lands) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules) and that in favour of respondent No. 4 under Rule 26 (2) of the said rules read with section 40 of the Code. In short, it was contended that there was nothing wrong in the said allotment. As far as the respondent No. 4 is concerned, she has taken the stand that the sanction to grant the said land in favour of her mother was done as per law and allotment in her favour was also done in accordance with law. She has, in fact, relied on provisions of section 40 of the Code and Rule 26 (2) of the said rules.

(3.) THE affidavit in reply which is filed on behalf of the State makes an interesting reading. It is inter-alia stated in the said affidavit that Yashodabai had applied on 6th October, 1981 for grant of land in question on the ground that the climate at Phaltan was suitable to her health and further that her daughter was at Phaltan to look after her; that the revenue record showed that the land bearing C. T. S. No. 6470 was a Government Forest Land and the Forest Department had constructed Forest Guard quarters in the area admeasuring 10,500 sq. ft. and the remaining area of 8,000 sq. ft. (i. e. the land in question) was shown as Government waste land; that the said piece of land was demanded by officers of 22 Maratha Battalion for construction of pair building of their N. C. C. unit; that however, taking into consideration the awkward triangular shape of the land, the N. C. C. unit cancelled its request; that thereafter the land was again demanded by Forest Department for construction of building for Plants Distribution Centre and hence the proposal recommending the request was submitted to the State Government on 9th April, 1981 and an order of the Collector, granting the land to the Forest Department, was issued on 30th September, 1981 : that thereafter the then Honble Minister for Revenue (State) granted stay of handing over possession of the land to the Forest Department by a phone message and accordingly, the Revenue Department under its endorsement No. O/a/1530/g/8 dated Nil October, 1981 instructed to submit a detailed report about the request of the applicant Yashodabai for grant of land and the report was submitted to the Government through the Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune on 4th May, 1982; that the Commissioner by his report stated that the land "should not be granted to Yashodabai and others on various grounds" and the Government thereafter, issued an order refusing the application of Yashodabai on 24th November, 1982 and also directed the Collector to handover possession of the land to the Forest Department; that the Government granted telephonic stay for handing over possession of the land to the Forest Department on 25th January, 1983 and directed to resubmit the case papers to the Government which was submitted by the Collector on 9th February 1983; that in the meanwhile, the Mahila Samajik Samata Parishad, Phaltan applied on 10th June, 1983 for being granted the said land in question, but the request was refused on 17th June, 1983 on the ground that the land was then granted to the Forest Department and that the report to the Government had been submitted and that the Government thereafter communicated their sanction for the grant of land to Yashodabai under its Memorandum dated 30th November, 1983 and the same was to be done on payment of occupancy price equal to the current market value of the land. It is further stated on affidavit that it had been disclosed in the enquiry prior to the grant of land to Yashodabai, a widow of freedom fighter; that she did not hold any landed property at Undale; that however, on disclosure that Yashodabai had expired, the grant of land was made on 8th November, 1984 as a special case in the name of her legal heir viz. her daughter-respondent No. 4 as Smt. Dubal (her sister) had given up her claim under Rule 26 (2) instead of Rule 28 of the said Rules and that the grant in favour of Yashodabai was under section 40 of the Code and Rule 26 (2) of the said Rules as a special case. It is categorically stated in the said affidavit that the State Government has a supreme right in disposing off its properties. Paragraph 15 of the said affidavit contains some particulars about applications made and the allotments which were earlier made and cancelled prior to the allotment in favour of Yashodabai.