SADASHIVRAO PATIL SHIKSHAN SANSTHA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 19.09.2002 passed by the Collector, Nagpur, allotting 5.12 hectare of land out of Survey Nos. 23A, 23B and 36/10 situated at Kamptee (hereinafter referred to as the "land in question") for the purposes of construction of houses for the Bidi workers belonging to economically backward classes. The order has been issued pursuant to the allotment made by the State Government as per its memorandum dated 14.07.2000.

(2.) The petitioner is the Society and running Technical Institution and was allotted 40,000 sq.mtrs of land, out of Survey No. 36/10, situated at Kamptee. This allotment of the petitioner was under Rules 5 and 6 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Lands) Rules, 1971 (in short "the said Rules), for educational purposes. The land admeasuring 37,500 sq. mtrs., was allotted for educational purpose, whereas 2,500 sq.mtrs of land was allotted for the purpose of play ground. The petitioner society claims to have applied for allotment of land in question which is adjacent to its land. The reliance is placed upon the document at page 41, dated 23.12.1998 by which the Naib Tahsildar called for certain information from the petitioner in respect of land Survey No. 36/10 and Khasra Nos. 23A and 23B, situated at Kamptee. The reliance is also placed upon the document dated 25.02.2004 to claim that the land in respect of which the proposal for allotment was submitted is in possession of the petitioner by way of encroachment since the year 1992.

(3.) It Is Urged By Shri Khapre, The Learned Counsel for the petitioner that without considering such proposal of the petitioner, the allotment of the land is made in favour of the respondent No. 5 - Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority i.e. MHADA on 14.07.2000 by the State Government. The reliance is placed upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Amin Mohammad Saha Mohammad Siddiqui vrs. State of Maharashtra and ors, 2004 3 BCR 339. It is also claimed that respondent No.5 - MHADA has failed to comply with the terms of grant by carrying out and completing the construction within the stipulated period. Hence, the allotment stands cancelled. It is also urged that looking to the need of the petitioner and the location of the land in question, the State Government should have granted allotment to the petitioner either under Rules 5 and 6 or under Rule 43 of the said Rules.