Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan vs The State of Maharashtra and Others

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

Present Petition Challenges Order dated 14.3.2024 of the respondent No.1, Passed in Revenue Appeal No.2022/proceeding No.104/J-9.

As can be seen from the averments made in the petition that the petitioner herein is a Public Trust duly registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 having registration No.A-250 (Buldhana). The petitioner Trust is maintaining a Samadhi temple of renowned Sant Shri Gajanan Maharaj at Shegaon. It is stated in the petition that the Trust is providing necessary facilities, amenities to the devotees who come to visit the said temple.

The State of Maharashtra sanctioned a development plan for the development of Shegaon town as an important religious place by issuing the Government Resolution on 9.3.2010. Under the said development plan there is a land owned by the State Government, namely, Khalwadi near Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Chowk, adjacent to Bhakta Niwas No. 3,4 and 5 and is earmarked for parking place for devotees. It is stated in the petition that this Court passed various orders in Writ Petition Nos.5856/2007 relating to the implementation of the abovesaid development plan and the said land is now transferred to the petitioner. The petitioner has developed a parking place for four-wheelers and two-wheelers therein.

The respondent Nos.2 to 14 in the present matter are claiming that they have been allotted some portion of the said Khalwadi land being refugees. It is a matter of record that the said lease expired in the year 2014 and the lease has not been renewed. Since the land was earmarked for parking place, it was sought to be vacated in terms of directions of this Court which prompted to respondent Nos.2 to 14 to file a Writ Petition bearing Writ Petition No.490/2022. This Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents No.15/Divisional Commissioner, Amravati and respondents No.16/Collector, Buldhana to decide the said representation dated 3.11.2020.

In pursuance to the orders of this Court, the respondent No.15 passed an order dated 13.5.2022 and decided the representation of respondent Nos.2 to 14. By virtue of said order, the respondent No.15 rejected the representation. It is further stated in the petition that even though not maintainable, the respondent Nos.2 to 14 filed an appeal under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 before the respondent No.21. The respondent No.1 initially granted an interim stay on 22.06.2022. Interestingly enough the said appeal was made without making the present petitioner as a party respondent.

After being made aware of the said fact, the petitioner appeared before the respondent No.21 and filed an application for intervention. However, since the said respondent No.21 refused to hear the petitioner, the petitioner was constrained to approached to this Court by preferring a Writ Petition No.1363/2023. This Court directed the respondent No.1 to grant an opportunity of hearing and also decided the application filed by the petitioner.

In pursuance to that the respondent No.21 issued a notice of hearing of appeal on 28.04.2023 fixing the date of hearing as 8th May, 2023 which was thereafter adjourned for 19.06.2023. The petition further states that the date of appeal was preponed to 12.06.2023 on which date it was heard. However, since the respondent No.21 failed to decide the Appeal, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.1032/2024. In the said matter in spite of the best efforts of the petitioner, notices of the writ petition could not be served and it was reported that respondent Nos.2 and 11 are dead. However, by suppressing this fact respondent Nos.2 to 14 proceeded before the respondent No.21. Thereafter, the hearing was again rescheduled and finally the order was passed on 14.03.2024. It is this order of the respondent No.21 which is impugned in the present petition.

I have heard Mr. A.R. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Parth Malviya, learned counsel for Respondent No.8(A) to 8(F), Mr. D.M. Kale, learned counsel for the respondent No.20 and Mrs. M.S. Naik, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1,15 to 19 and 21.

Mr. A.R. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner by taking me through the entire narration of the facts stated supra states that the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister on 14.03.2024 is without jurisdiction and therefore liable to be quashed on this ground only. He further submits that the respondent No.1 did not consider that the appeal preferred by the respondent No.2 to 14 under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 was not tenable since there was no revenue application or case filed by the respondent No.2 to 14 before the Divisional Commissioner. It is his submission that it is an admitted fact on record that the Divisional Commissioner has only passed an order in pursuance to the directions of this Court and the representations of the respondent Nos.2 to 14 cannot be said to be any revenue application. He further states that the prayer clause in the Writ Petition No.490/2020 filed by the respondent Nos.2 to 14 herein would clearly show that only a direction to the respondent No.3 therein i.e. Collector was prayed for. He also points me out the order dated 2nd February, 2022 by the Division Bench of this Court wherein it was directed to decide the representation of the petitioner in light of the minutes of the meeting held on 27.4.2019. He, therefore, submits that the appeal being not maintainable could not have been entertained and, therefore, the order of the Minister is infirm in law.

Per contra, Mr. Parth Malviya, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.8A to 8F submits that the appeal filed before the Minister was perfectly valid since Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 contemplates appeal against any decision or order. He further submits that the Authority was correct in entertaining the appeal and only the matter has been remanded. He takes me through the order of the respondent No.1 impugned in the petition and submits that in effect the respondent No.1 has only remanded the matter with certain directions to the Divisional Commissioner to assess as to whether the portion in occupation of the respondent Nos.2 to 14 is in accordance with the conditions of the lease as also the covenants in the development plan. He therefore prays for dismissal of the petition.

Notices issued to respondent Nos.2(A),2(B), 4 to 7, 9 to 14 are served by regular mode and notice issued to respondent No.3 is served on correct address, but none appears for them.

Mrs. M.S. Naik, learned Assistant Government Pleader took me through her reply wherein it is unequivocally stated that the Divisional Commissioner has done the spot inspection of the concerned property and has imposed renewal charges for the lease being getting renewed in favour of the respondents Nos.2 to 14. It is further stated in the reply that even though the petitioners have deposited amount of fees Rs.1,00,000/- on 8.8.2016, the rest of the amount is not deposited. Hence, the final order of renewal of the lease could not have been passed. She further submits that the present respondents Nos.2 to 14 are having their wrongful and unlawful possession over the land of the Government. In turn, she supports the petitioner regarding expiry of lease is considered.

Rival contentions fall for my consideration. It is a matter of record that appeal under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 can only be filed only when there is a 'decision or order' in the context of the Land Revenue Code would always mean any adjudication which would determine the rights of the parties. Having considered the direction of the respondent No.15 i.e. the Divisional Commissioner it is clearly revealed that no such 'decision or order' is there. The Divisional Commissioner has acted only in pursuance of the directions of this Court and decided the representation made by the respondent Nos.2 to 14 herein. Therefore, in my considered opinion Revision under Section 257 could not have been entertained by the respondent No.1.

The malafides of the respondent Nos.2 to 14 can also be gauged on the fact that initially they didn't choose to make the petitioner Trust as a party respondent in the appeal knowing fully well that it was the petitioner who was allotted the said piece of land in the development plan. Furthermore, as has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court has passed various orders in relation to the development of Shegao more particularly on 5.4.2018 wherein it was directed that no subordinate Court shall entertain any litigation with respect to the subject matter which is pending before the Court. The endeavour of the respondent No.1 in entertaining and remanding the matter to the Divisional Commissioner seems to be in direct contrast with the order of this Court. What is noteworthy to mention that the impugned order of the respondent No.1 does not make any reference to the order of this Court passed in the Public Interest Litigation.

It is also a matter of record that the lease of the respondent Nos.2 to 14 has expired way back in the year 2010 and there is no renewal thereof. In the totality of circumstances, I find the order of the respondent No.1 totally perverse for various reasons as mentioned supra. Firstly, the proceeding itself was not maintainable and the entire exercise to entertain the same seems to be in contradiction with the order of this Court passed from time to time. Even though there was no effective adjudication by the respondent No.15 Divisional Commissioner the respondent No.21 has chosen to entertain the appeal. The entire exercise of respondent No.21 is without jurisdiction.

In that view of the matter, the petition is liable to be allowed. Hence, I proceed to following order :

The petition is allowed.

The judgment and order of the respondent No.21/Minister (Revenue) Department of Revenue, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development, State of Maharashtra dated 14.03.2024 passed in Appeal No.2022/Proceedings No.104/J-9 is quashed and set aside.

The petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute in above stated terms. No costs.