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.) THEREAFTER Respondent No.2 issued notice to Petitioner for hearing on application filed by Respondent No..4 A.P.M.C. as per directions of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 70/1992. According to Petitioner, this was also to help Respondent No..5 to prolong or postpone execution of decree. The Petitioner could not attend the hearing as notice thereof was of very short duration and then the hearing was adjourned to 05.02.2007. But again due to short notice, hearing could not take place. Further hearing was on 15.03.2007 and Petitioner received notice thereof on 12.03.2007. Subsequently on 14.03.2007 she received notice that hearing was scheduled on 17.03.2007 instead of 15.03.2007 and then she received notice dated 01.06.2007 for hearing on 06.06.2007. The Petitioner on each occasion could not even arrange for railway reservations and sent telegram to Respondent No..2 in this respect, and sought advance notice of at least one month. Petitioner was then by notice dated 06.06.2007 called upon to file written notes of argument, which she submitted on 14.06.2007 by R.P.A.D. and raised preliminary objection about the locus of Respondent No..4 and also maintainability of application for review at its instance, because Respondent No..4 did not pass any resolution and authorize filing of review. The Petitioner requested for detailed opportunity of hearing and its the contention of the Petitioner that without deciding her preliminary objection and without giving her opportunity of hearing, the Respondent No..2 passed order on 03.09.2007, which Petitioner received on 08.10.2007. It is this order which the Petitioner has questioned in the present Writ Petition.