AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.K. Deshpande, J.
1.The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 4-6-1993 passed by the respondent No.3-Collector, Amravati, resuming the land Plot No.9/1, Sheet
No.67(A), admeasuring 32026 sq.ft. allotted to the petitioner-Trust for a period of thirty-two years. The petition also challenges the order dated 1-9-
2008 passed by the respondent No.2-Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, in appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land
Revenue Code, 1966 dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner-Trust.
2.The facts gathered from the return filed by the respondents in this petition are as under :
The dispute pertains to Plot No.9, area 32026 sq.ft. Nazul Sheet No.67-A, which is a Government land. It was granted to the petitioner-Trust on lease
for a period of five years on temporary basis from 1923. The lease was thereafter renewed for a further period of five years from 3-3-1928 to 31-3-
1932. Thereafter, it was renewed for a period of thirty years from 1-4-1932 to 31-3-1962. It was further renewed for a period of ten years from 1-4-
1962 to 31-3-1972. Thereafter, there is no renewal.
3.The case of the petitioner-Trust is that they were granted a long-term lease of thirty years even prior to 1-11-1928, when the Berar Land Revenue
Code, 1928 came into force. In terms of sub-section (2) of Section 54 of the Berar Land Revenue Code, all the persons, who prior to commencement
of the said Code were granted or held unalienated non-agricultural land under the style of 'occupant or under lease' are entitled to hold the same in
perpetuity. Reliance is also placed upon the provision of 146(e) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, which came into force in 1954, and
Section 29 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, which came into force in 1966. According to the petitioner-Trust, they have perfected their title
over the property in question as Bhumiswami land and all restrictions imposed in the lease-deed prior to 1928 are wiped out. Specific reference is
made to the case of The Shrikrishna Theosophical Lodge, Amravati, to whom Nazul land in Plot No.72, Sheet No.68-B of Amravati was granted by
the Government and it was held that by virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 54 of the Berar Land Revenue Code, 1928, all the conditions imposed
were wiped out.
4.It is not in dispute that even the Collector had recommended the Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, on 20-7-1976 placed on record as
Annexure-II that the land in occupation of the petitioner-Trust needs to be treated alike to that of the land which was granted to The Shrikrishna
Theosophical Lodge, Amravati, and opinion was sought to confirm the view that the petitioner-Trust has also acquired the status of full owner and that
no permission as sought for, is necessary for construction of shops.
5.The order dated 24-5-1971 passed by the Revenue & Forest Department of the State Government in the name of the Commissioner, Nagpur
Division, Nagpur, in respect of The Shrikrishna Theosophical Lodge, Amravati, holding that in view of sub-section (2) of Section 54 of the Berar Land
Revenue Code, 1928, all restrictions imposed in the lease of land granted to the said Trust stood wiped out and, therefore, no permission for
construction of shops would be required, is placed on record. Such a view expressed by the Collector was accepted to be a correct view.
6.In the return filed by the respondent No.3-Collector, Amravati, in the present petition, a distinction is sought to be made that the petitioner was
granted the land in question on temporary lease, which is clearly mentioned in the lease conditions. The respondents have accepted the entire position
in their return, and in the Annexure-II to the petition, to the effect the condition that the lease was temporary, which gets wiped out and no permission
would be required for construction of shops to augment the income of the petitioner-Trust.
7.In view of above, this petition is allowed. The order dated 4-6-1993 passed by the respondent No.3-Collector, Amravati, and the order dated 1-9-
2008 passed by the respondent No.2-Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, are hereby quashed and set aside.
8.Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.