1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 3394/2007 Maharogi Seva Samiti Dattapur ..vs.. State of Maharashtra and another -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 5 th February, 2008 1. Heard Mr. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Taywade, A.G.P. for respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 is present personally in the Court. 2. The petitioner, by filing this petition takes exception to the communication dated 19.06.2007 issued to the Government Pleader, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Nagpur by Under Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, under which it is stated that there is no provision for permission to sell the land in Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 and Rules made thereunder in the year 1966. 3. The petitioner is a Trust registered under the 2 Bombay Public Trust Act working for the upliftment of Leprosy patients. The total holding of the petitioner Trust is 158.3 Hectare. It is not disputed that the petitioner Trust has been given exemption under Section 47 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 on certain terms and conditions. 4. In order to fulfill the object of the Trust, the Executive Body passed a resolution for alienating the land admeasuring about 30 Acres approximately to raise sufficient funds. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred an application under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act to the Joint Charity Commissioner. The Joint Charity Commissioner, after thorough enquiry granted permission to the petitioner to sell the land by order dated 20.07.2002. 5. The petitioner Trust, thereafter, invited bids and the bid of respondent No. 2 being the highest one is accepted. The learned Jt. Charity Commissioner sanctioned this bid of respondent No. 2 and granted permission to the petitioner Trust for selling out the land to the proposed purchaser. 3 Since, the exemption is not granted by the Government, the petitioner was constrained to apply the Joint Charity Commissioner from time to time for extension of time for execution of the sale deed. The Jt. Charity Commissioner, ultimately on 20.06.2006 refused to extend the time to execute the sale deed. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file Writ Petition No.4092/2006. This writ petition was allowed and order of the Jt. Charity Commissioner was set aside. The petitioner was given extension from 08.09.2006 for the period of six months. This period was extended from time to time by this Court and now the last extension was granted by order dated 25.06.2007 for the period of six months and that period has expired in January-2008. Therefore, the petitioner has filed separate application, bearing C.A. No. 666/2008 in Writ Petition No. 4092/2006 for extension of time. 6. In the meanwhile, the impugned communication was sent by the Under Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department 4 to the Government Pleader, High Court, Nagpur and, therefore, this communication is under challenge in this petition. 7. Mr. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner, invited my attention to Annexure-6 under which similar permission is given to Nasik Panchavati Panjara Pol Trust Nasik. He further pointed out the statement of respondent No. 1 in para 7 of the affidavit, acknowledging the fact that the Government had granted permission to the aforesaid Nasik Panchavati Panjara Pol Trust, Nasik to sell some of the exempted land vide Government Letter dated 24.10.1997. 8. Perusal of the impugned communication reveals that the petitioner was given exemption under Section 47 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, subject to certain terms and conditions and if these terms and conditions are contravened then the said land is liable to be forfeited. The communication further shows that the aforesaid Act and Rules does not make any provision for 5 grant of permission to sell the agricultural land which has been exempted under Section 47 of Act. However, it is clear from Annexure-6, mentioned in para 7 above that the Government has already on 27.07.1997 granted similar permission to sell the agricultural land to Nasik Panchavati Panjara Pol Trust, Nasik and this fact is admitted by respondent No. 1 in para 7 of the affidavit. 9. In the above backdrop, in my opinion, the petition can be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to prefer application for permission to sell the aforesaid agricultural land and directing respondent No. 1 to dispose of the same in the light of observations made in this order. 10. I, therefore, pass the following order. (a) The petitioner is at liberty to file application afresh to respondent No. 1 for permission to sell 30 Acres of the agricultural land owned by it to respondent No. 2. (b) If, the petitioner prefers such application as stated above within a period of two weeks from today, respondent 6 No. 1 is directed to dispose of the same in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order as expeditiously as possible an in any case within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the application. (c) The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. JUDGE kahale