Allowed

Jayaprakash Education Society, through Chairman v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Dec 2014WP/392/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that Revenue officers cannot decline, by inaction, to execute a lease mandated by the State Government order dated 20th June 2011. The court directed the respondents to execute the lease within three months.

What did the court decide?

The respondents are directed to execute the lease in terms of the order dated 20th June 2011 within a period of three months.

Jayaprakash Education Society, through… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2014)

WP.392-2014

Dond

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.392 OF 2014

¶6

Jayaprakash Education Society Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶8

..Petitioner

¶9

..Respondents.

¶10

Mr. Narendra V. Bandiwadekar for the Petitioner. Mr. V.S. Gokhale, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 5.

¶11

CORAM: A.S. OKA &

¶12

A.S. GADKARI, JJ.

¶13

DATE : 8^th December 2014.

¶14

P.C.

¶15

1 Notice of final disposal was issued by this Court on 18^th

¶16

November 2014.

¶17

2 On the basis of the Application made by the Petitioner, a land bearing Gat No.245/D admeasuring 4 Hectare at Peth Vadgaon, Taluka Hatkanangale, District Kolhapur was allotted by the State Government to the Petitioner. The allotment was made on a lease for the purposes of playing ground for a period of 15 years from 7^th August 1984. A reliance is placed on a Lease Agreement dated 9^th August 1984 as well as the

¶18

¶19

WP.392-2014

¶20

possession panchanama dated 10^th August 1984.

¶21

3 The case made out by the Petitioner is that the said land admeasures 4 Hectare and the Petitioner had to spend a substantial amount for development of the said land. The case of the Petitioner is that a large number of trees were planted on the said land which are being maintained by the Petitioner. It is stated that the Petitioner has also developed 800 meter running track on the said play ground.

¶22

4 The period of lease of 15 years was to expire on 7^th August 1999. An application was made by the Petitioner to the District Collector of Kolhapur for granting the said land on permanent basis. It appears that the Application made by the Petitioner was processed and ultimately by an order dated 20^th June 2011, the State Government directed that a lease be executed in favour of the Petitioner for a period of 30 years from 20^th June 2011 on nominal rent of Rs.1/-. The said order provides that the lease will be on the same terms and conditions as per orders dated 25^th July 1984 and 7^th August 1984. Various other conditions were also incorporated in the said order.

¶23

5 On 14^th July 2011, the District Collector called upon the Petitioner to make compliance with various terms and conditions of the order dated 20^th June 2011. On the basis of the said letter, the Petitioner

¶24

¶25

WP.392-2014

¶26

signed the primary agreement in the prescribed format dated 16^th March 2012. The grievance in the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is firstly that the land has not been granted on permanent basis and the second grievance is made in the alternative that the lease has not been executed in terms of the order dated 20^th June 2011.

¶27

6 There is a reply filed on behalf of the State Government by Shri Narayan Pandurang Pawar, Circle Officer, Kasaba Vadgaon, Taluka Hatkanangale, District Kolhapur. In the said reply a reliance is placed on the letter dated 20^th March 2013 submitted by the Additional Collector to the State Government in which a recommendation was made to reduce the area by 4 Hectare to 2 Hectare on the ground that the area of one Hectare is covered by a stream and one Hectare covered by about 350 to 400 trees.

¶28

7 Even taking the statements made in the affidavit-in-reply as correct, as of today, the order dated 20^th June 2011 of the State Government granting lease in respect of the said land to the Petitioner for a period of 30 years continues to operate in force. The prayer made in this petition is confined to the execution of the lease in terms of prayer clause (c) as recorded in order dated 11^th March 2014. Only excuse put forward in the affidavit-in-reply of the Circle Officer is the report submitted by the Additional Collector to the State Government to reduce the area to two

¶29

¶30

WP.392-2014

¶31

Hectare. There is a letter dated 12^th November 2013 addressed by the

¶32

Additional Collector to the Petitioner by which it is suggested to the Petitioner to follow up the proposal submitted by him to the State Government.

¶33

8 As order dated 20^th June 2011 passed by the State Government continues to hold the field, we fail to understand as to how Officers of the Revenue Department can decline to act upon the said order only on the ground that a suggestion is made by the Additional Collector on 20^th March 2013 to the State Government to reduce the area of land is not yet considered . The Additional Collector is bound by the order of the State Government.

¶34

9 In the circumstances, the Respondents are under the obligation

¶35

to act upon the order dated 20^th June 2011 by executing a lease in terms of the said order.

¶36

10 Hence, we dispose of the petition by passing the following

¶37

order:

¶38

(i) We direct the Respondents to execute a lease in terms of order dated 20^th June 2011 subject to Petitioner making a compliance with the terms and conditions of the said order;

¶39

(ii) The lease shall be executed as expeditiously as possible and in any even within a period of three months from today;

¶40

(iii) Writ Petition is disposed in above terms with no order as to

WP.392-2014

costs;

(iv) All concerned to act upon an authenticated copy of this order.

¶45

(A.S. GADKARI, J.) (A.S. OKA, J.)

Jayaprakash Education Society, through Chairman v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayaprakash Education Society, through Chairman v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Kailas Nivrutti Khadke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kumar Housing Corporation Ltd. and Ors. Vs Registrar of Documents, Pune and Ors.

Shri. Kailas Nivrutti Khadke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Rajendra Gopalrao Girme Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Revenue Dept and Ors.

Shri. Rajendra Gopalrao Girme Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Revenue Dept and Ors.

Chandrabhan Vithal Choudhari and Ors. Vs Smt. Tarabai Balasaheb Borade and Anr.