Dismissed

Magaswargiya Sarvodaya Shikshan and Prashikshan Sanstha, Wardha Thr. Secretary and Another v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Department of Urban Development, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC5 Feb 2019WP/875/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Nagpur rejected the petitioner's writ petition seeking regularization under the Maharashtra Gunthewari Act. The court held that the land did not qualify as a Gunthewari development, noting a lack of evidence for ownership or construction prior to January 1, 2001, and insufficient proof of school usage.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no application for regularization granted; no costs awarded.

Magaswargiya Sarvodaya Shikshan and Prashikshan Sanstha… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2019)

Order

0502wp875.17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 875/2017.

¶6

Magaswargiya Sarvodaya Shikshan and Prashikshan Sanstha, Wardha and another.

¶7

VERSUS-

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and others.

¶9

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶10

Shri C.S. Kaptan, Senior Advocate with Shri A.A. Naik, Advocate for Petitioners.

¶11

Shri S.Y. Deopujari, G.P. for Respondent No.1. Shri M.V. Samarth, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Ms. P. Chandurkar, Advocate for Respondent No.4.

¶12

CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE & VINAY JOSHI, JJ.

¶13

DATE : FEBRUARY 05, 2019.

¶14

Heard.

¶15

The only question involved in the present

¶16

writ petition is – Whether petitioners are entitled to protection under the provisions of the Maharashtra Gunthewari Developments (Regulation, Upgradation

¶17

and Control) Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “the Gunthewari Act” for short).

Order

0502wp875.17

Section 3 of the Gunthewari Act deals with regularization of Gunthewari Developments and subsection [1] therein provides for - all Gunthewari developments existing as on 1^st January, 2001, shall, on an application being made in this behalf by the plot-holder, to the Planning Authority, as provided in section 4 be eligible for being considered by the Planning Authority for regularization.

¶22

The definition of 'Gunthewari Developments' as provided in Section 2[1][a] of the Gunthewari Act defines it to mean plots formed by unauthorizedly sub-dividing privately owned land, with buildings, if any, on such plots, including excess vacant land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, not vested in the State Government but excluding land under encroachment.

¶23

Sub-section [2] of Section 3 states that the regularization of any Gunthewari development shall be subject to the general conditions specified therein, which includes condition [a], that in the layout, ten percent of the plots shall vest in the Planning Authority, free of cost, provided that such plots are

Order

0502wp875.17

unsold and unbuilt.

In response to the judgment dated 08.07.2016, delivered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 5462/2014, filed by petitioners, the representation made by petitioners was considered by the Chairman of Nagpur Improvement Trust, Nagpur, the competent Authority under the Gunthewari Act. A well reasoned order is passed recording the findings as under :

¶29

“(1) The construction development was not carried out on the said plot before qualifying date i.e. 01.01.2001 as indicated in Google image.

¶30

(2) On examining the evidence in respect of an application submitted by the applicant to the Nagpur Improvement Trust on 23.07.2006, the said evidences are found false.

¶31

(3) The applicant has submitted an application on 15.02.2011, i.e. after the date 30.11.2007.

¶32

(4) The area of the said plot falls in Open Space in the sanctioned layout. Similarly, as per the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in Public Interest Litigation No.40/2013, the plots in the open space cannot be regularized.”

Order

0502wp875.17

It is held that in view of the aforesaid findings, the application filed by petitioners is liable to be rejected.

¶37

Before us, the learned Senior Counsel, has relied upon the permission for opening of the school granted on 12.07.1999, and similar such documents, said to have been issued by the Education Department upto 28.10.2005, to urge that the plot No. 60-A, in respect of which claim is made, has been in possession of petitioners and the school is being run on the building constructed thereon. We do not find from these documents that the same pertain to plot in question i.e. plot no.60-A.

¶38

Reliance is also placed on un-registered gift deed dated 09.08.1999, sought to have been executed in favour of petitioners, which document was impounded on 10.02.2011, to urge that the land in question was transferred prior to 01.01.2001.

¶39

We cannot recognize the transfer by way of un-registered document of the plot in question on 09.08.1999. We also called upon the learned Senior Counsel to point out to us any water bills or electricity bills to establish the possession and user of the

Order

0502wp875.17

building for school purpose. We also granted time to produce it by granting an adjournment. Learned Senior Counsel is unable to place on record any such document.

¶44

In view of above, we find that the land in question is not covered by the gunthewari development. Petitioners could not satisfy us on the question of their ownership and construction prior to 01.01.2001. No application for regularization was filed. It is the case of respondents that encroachment over the land made on 01.11.2011 was removed. The findings of fact recorded by the Chairman, Nagpur Improvement Trust is the report dated 11.01.2017, needs no interference. Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed. No costs.

¶45

JUDGE JUDGE

¶46

Rgd.

Magaswargiya Sarvodaya Shikshan and Prashikshan Sanstha, Wardha Thr. Secretary and Another v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Department of Urban Development, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Magaswargiya Sarvodaya Shikshan and Prashikshan Sanstha, Wardha Thr. Secretary and Another v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Department of Urban Development, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sau. Rekha W/O Ramdhan Ingole Vs Commissioner, Family Welfare and Director, Mumbai and Others

Kawadu S/O Ganpat Warhadkar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nagpur and Another

Kawadu S/O Ganpat Warhadkar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nagpur and Another

Rajiv S/O Arvind Ramteke Vs Director of Medical Education and Research, Mumbai and Others

Archna Sanjay Mhaisne Vs the Zilla Parishad, Akola through Its Chief Executive Officer

Jaya Prabhakar Khanzode Vs the Zilla Parishad, Akola through Its Chief Executive Officer