GANGABAI GOPALDAS MOHTA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner a government lessee in possession of land situated at Murtizapur has challenged the order dated 03.09.2007 passed by Respondent No.1 - State of Maharashtra, directing the land to be resumed and calling report from Respondent No.3 Collector for its allotment afresh in favour of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, as per law. The Petitioner is about 99 years old and therefore, as requested, Writ Petition was taken up for final hearing at admission stage itself. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

(2.) Facts in the matter are not much in dispute. The land which forms subject matter of present Writ Petition was initially leased out to predecessors in title of Petitioner namely "New Mofussil Company Limited" on 04.08.1905 by Secretary of State of India in Council for a period of 30 years which contemplated further renewal. However, total period thereof was not to exceed in aggregate 90 years. On 19.03.1937 the said lease was renewed for a period of next 30 years i.e. up to 31.12.1964. The last renewal is as per the order passed in 1980 and for period unto 31.12.1994. The orders of last renewal have been passed on 29.01.1980 whereby earlier orders of resumption dated 31.05.1971 passed by Respondent No..1, were cancelled and renewal was ordered. The Petitioner mentions that it was for period of 30 years w.e.f. 01.01.1963 i.e. unto 31.12.1993. On 14.06.1988, upon an application of Respondent No. 4 Agriculture Produce Market Committee (APMC), the Officer on Special Duty reviewed this order dated 29.01.1980 and held that the Petitioner has used the land for purpose other than the one for which it was leased out, and therefore, ordered resumption. The said order was challenged in Writ Petition No. 1608/1988 before this Court and on 16.04.1992 this Court dismissed that Writ Petition. This dismissal of Writ Petition was questioned in Letters Patent Appeal No. 70/1992 and the Division Bench of this Court on 19.07.2006 allowed that Appeal and remanded the matter back to Respondent No..1 to consider the application filed by Respondent No..4 afresh in accordance with the provisions of law. Said review was undertaken by Respondent No..1 on 14.06.1988 in response to application dated 01.03.1980 filed by Respondent No..4 A.P.M.C. Respondent No..4 an Authority constituted under the provisions of Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967 wanted the said land for its own purpose and expansion. Respondent No. 5 was leased out part of land by Petitioner for running a Ginning & Pressing Mill and therefore, Respondent No..5 had also moved application to Respondent No..1 for cancellation of orders of renewal in favour of Petitioner.

(3.) There was some Civil litigation filed by the Petitioner against the said Respondent No..5 and ultimately a compromise decree was passed in First Appeals No. 43/1978 and 142/1977 whereby Respondent No..5 was put under obligation to vacate and deliver possession to Petitioner on or before 31.12.1990. As he did not vacate Execution Case No. 1/1991 was filed by the present Petitioner against him. Petitioner alleges that in this Execution case Respondent No..5 with the influence of Respondent No..2 arranged & filed an objection through Sub Divisional Officer, Murtizapur on 31.07.2007. The Petitioner states that this was done only to arrest execution of warrant of possession which was already issued.