Vidarbha Hockey Association vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

Heard.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned AGP for respondents/State.

The present petition challenges order dated 07.08.2026 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, who is the respondent No. 1 in the petition. By way of said order the respondent No. 1 has rejected the application for stay in a statutory appeal filed by the petitioner herein, challenging the order of the Collector dated 17.07.2026.

The facts which can be seen from the memo of the petition are as under:

The petitioner, being a registered society, is also a public trust within the meaning of Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. The petitioner organization, being dedicated to the goal of promotion and encouragement of Hockey sports and nurturing the talented sports persons, is counted in 11 District Associations in the Vidarbha region amongst its members and has distinguished itself for the services it has rendered to the sports of Hockey. The petitioner association is also a lessee of the Nazul land bearing Khasra No.65/5 C.T.S. No. 277, Mouza Gadga, admeasuring 3.80 hectares within the limits of NMC and NIT. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said lease was initially granted by the respondent No.2 on 24.09.1962 for a period of 15 years up to 23.09.1977 and thereafter was renewed from time to time. It is further stated in the petition that the said lease still subsists; its validity being till 23.09.2037.

In the light of these facts, it is submitted by the petitioner association that a show cause notice issued by the Tahsildar on 16.06.2026, which is appended at page No. 122 of the petition, thereby asking the petitioner association to show cause as to why the lease granted to it by the State should not be cancelled since there are certain deficiencies as pointed out in the said show cause notice.

A detailed and exhaustive reply was submitted to the said show cause notice by the petitioner association. Pursuant to which, the respondent No. 2 Collector, passed an order on 17.07.2026, thereby cancelling the lease granted to the petitioner association. It also directed the State to resume the said land in question, and terminated all the rights of the petitioner association.

Being aggrieved by this, the petitioner association has filed a statutory appeal as provided under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and the same is pending before the respondent No. 1. In the said appeal, as there was a threat of dispossession, the petitioner association filed an application for stay, seeking stay to the implementation and execution of the order of the Collector, terminating the lease and granting resumption of the premises in question. The said application is rejected, which is impugned in the present petition.

I have heard learned Counsel Shri Khedkar for the petitioner and Mrs. Barabde, learned AGP, for the respondents-State. Shri Khedkar submits that there is no specific allegation in the show cause notice and, in fact, the order of the Collector, which terminates the lease of the petitioner association, is vague in nature, since no specific omission has been attributed to it. It is his case that, even though the grant of lease was subject to recognition of the Education Department, there is no question of such a recognition being cancelled or otherwise. In the alternative, he submits that, even the order of the Collector terminating the lease is taken hypothetically to be correct for a while, it has not attained finality and is subject matter of challenge before the competent authority, i.e., the respondent No. 1. He further submits that there is an eminent threat of the petitioner association losing possession, which has been granted from the year 1962. He therefore, prays that its possession be protected and, alternately, submits that statutory appeal pending before the Commissioner, i.e., the respondent No. 1, be decided on its own merits within a particular time period.

Mrs. Barabde, learned AGP, appearing for the respondents-State, opposes the contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is her submission that since there were violations which were prima facie found to be correct, the Collector has rightly passed the order. She does not dispute that a statutory appeal is pending before the respondent No. 1. However, she submits that since the petitioner association has breached the conditions of lease, on which it was granted, the law has taken its own course, and, therefore, the possession of the petitioner cannot be protected.

Be that as it may, the learned AGP also submits on instructions that after the Collector, i.e., the respondent No. 2, has passed the order, the petitioner association has moved an application before the same authority for keeping the order in abeyance and the respondent No. 2 has directed the respondent No. 3 not to proceed further till further orders.

However, looking at the facts, and the narrations made hereinabove, it would be equitable that the Divisional Commissioner, i.e., the respondent No.1 is directed to decide the statutory appeal pending before it, filed by the petitioner association within six weeks from today.

Till the appeal is decided by the respondent No. 1, the parties are directed to maintain status quo as regards the possession of the petitioner.

With these directions, the petition is allowed and disposed of as such with no order as to costs.