:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2670 OF 1993 WRIT PETITION NO. 2670 OF 1993 WRIT PETITION NO. 2670 OF 1993 Vasantrao Y. Patil ..Petitioner versus Rameshwar B Jagtap & Ors. ..Respondents Mrs. A. A. Agarwal for the Petitioner. Mrs. R. Ambekar for the Respondent No.1. Mr. S. K. Chinchalikar, AGP for the State. CORAM : D. G. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM : D. G. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM : D. G. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 6TH NOVEMBER, 2006 DATE : 6TH NOVEMBER, 2006 DATE : 6TH NOVEMBER, 2006 ORAL ORDER : ORAL ORDER : ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard Counsel for the Petitioner, Respondent No.1 and learned AGP for the State. 2. Petitioner is the purchaser of land admeasuring 210 x 70 ft. from the Government by an auction. He has challenged the allotment of land by the Government to the respondent No.1 admeasuring 50 x 50 ft. and / or 150 x 50 ft. without auction. His main contention is that the Government land can :2: only be parted with by auction and by allotting this much land to the respondent No.1, the Government has committed breach of the Rules, viz., The Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Lands) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "Land Disposal Rules"). He further contends that requiring him to bid in the auction and giving land to the Respondent No.1 without auction, he has been discriminated. 3. Copies of many orders have been filed, but I will refer to the orders relevant to the issue involved. One such order is Exhibit ’C’ of the Additional Collector, Pune Division, Pune, confirming the auction sale in favour of the petitioner in respect of 210 ft. x 70 ft. of land and also in respect of allotment of land to respondent No.1 admeasuring 50’ x 50’ on occupancy price of Rs.250/-. The land was got measured as is seen from this order. The land of petitioner was found to be 210 x 70 ft. and the land of the respondent No.1 was found to be 50 ft x 50 ft. However, it appears that the prayer of the respondent No.1 to give him the whole area of 150 ft. x 50 ft. was accepted because the land remaining after construction was agreed to be kept :3: vacant by him. The Collector therefore ordered that land admeasuring 150 ft. x 50 ft. be given to the respondent NO.1 on terms and conditions. The present petitioner challenged this order of the Additional Collector before the Additional Commissioner by filing Appeal but the Appeal came to be dismissed by an order dated 23.6.1980. Then, the petitioner moved Officer on Special Duty of the Government of Maharashtra. There also his appeal came to be dismissed. It appears that thereafter the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, vide Exhibit ’G’ cancelled the allotment of land in favour of the respondent No.1. In paragraph 8 of this order, the Additional Commissioner has stated that the Respondent No.1 was not a landless person and he does not belong to the category to which the land can be allowed without auction and the Collector did not seek permission of the Commissioner before sanction. Then, the respondent herein challenged this order of the Additional Commissioner before the Officer on Special Duty, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai, by filing a Revision. An order was passed on 21.8.1986 remanding the matter to the Additional Commissioner to take necessary action and submit report to the :4: Government on the points indicated. Then it appears from Exhibit ’I’ that SDO submitted report to the Additional Commissioner on 31.1.1989 holding that respondent No.1 is not a Government servant and is entitled to land under Rule 28 of the Land Disposal Rules. But land is allotted to him under Rule 26(1) read with 26(2) with the sanction of the Commissioner, Pune. Regarding property of the Respondent No.1, the SDO in Point No.2 opined that it was in the name of the father of the Respondent No.1 who had left unregistered Will and bequeathed his property to grand son Sanjay Ramchandra Jagtap, and as regards Point No.4 the SDO opined that respondent No.1 was serving in Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Baramati, and hence cannot be said to be a government servant. Ultimate order that is filed is Exhibit "J" of the Officer on Special Duty in Revision filed by the Respondent No.1 and the order was confirmed in favour of the respondent No.1. 4. Mrs. Agarwal streneously urged that the allotment of land to the respondent No.1 was without following prescribed procedure under the Land Revenue Code. Secondly, according to her that :5: Government had no right and power to allot the land without holding auction, and thirdly according to her the petitioner has been discriminated against by requiring to participate in the auction and giving the land to the respondent No.1 without holding auction. 5. As against this Mrs. Ambekar contended that the land has been given to the respondent No.1 by following procedure prescribed by the law under the Land Disposal Rules and there are no illegalities committed. She further contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this petition. She relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (1976) S.C.C. 671 Jasbhai (1976) S.C.C. 671 Jasbhai (1976) S.C.C. 671 Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed Motibhai Desai vs. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed Motibhai Desai vs. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed and others. and others. and others. Since point regarding locus standi goes to the route of the matter, it is necessary to deal with the said point in the beginning. Following portion of the aforesaid judgment were brought to my notice by Mrs. Ambekar : "34. This Court has laid down in a number "34. This Court has laid down in a number "34. This Court has laid down in a number of decisions that in order to have the locus of decisions that in order to have the locus of decisions that in order to have the locus standi to invoke the extraordinary standi to invoke the extraordinary standi to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, an applicant jurisdiction under Article 226, an applicant jurisdiction under Article 226, an applicant should ordinarily be one who has a personal should ordinarily be one who has a personal should ordinarily be one who has a personal or individual right in the subject-matter of or individual right in the subject-matter of or individual right in the subject-matter of :6: the application, though in the case of some the application, though in the case of some the application, though in the case of some of the writs like habeas corpus or quo of the writs like habeas corpus or quo of the writs like habeas corpus or quo warranto this rule is relaxed or modified. warranto this rule is relaxed or modified. warranto this rule is relaxed or modified. In other words, as a general rule, In other words, as a general rule, In other words, as a general rule, infringement of some legal right or infringement of some legal right or infringement of some legal right or prejudice to some legal interest inhering in prejudice to some legal interest inhering in prejudice to some legal interest inhering in the petitioner is necessary to give him a the petitioner is necessary to give him a the petitioner is necessary to give him a locus standi in the matter (see State of locus standi in the matter (see State of locus standi in the matter (see State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta; Calcutta Gas Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta; Calcutta Gas Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta; Calcutta Gas Co. v. State of W.B; Ram Umershwari Co. v. State of W.B; Ram Umershwari Co. v. State of W.B; Ram Umershwari Suthoo v. Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa; Suthoo v. Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa; Suthoo v. Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa; Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Government of Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Government of Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Government of A.P; State of Orissa v. Rajasaheb A.P; State of Orissa v. Rajasaheb A.P; State of Orissa v. Rajasaheb Chandanmall; Dr. Satyanarayana Sinha v. Chandanmall; Dr. Satyanarayana Sinha v. Chandanmall; Dr. Satyanarayana Sinha v. M/s. S. Lal & Co.). M/s. S. Lal & Co.). M/s. S. Lal & Co.). 35. The expression "ordinarily" indicates 35. The expression "ordinarily" indicates 35. The expression "ordinarily" indicates that this is not a cast-iron rule. It is that this is not a cast-iron rule. It is that this is not a cast-iron rule. It is flexible enough to take in those cases where flexible enough to take in those cases where flexible enough to take in those cases where the applicant has been prejudicially the applicant has been prejudicially the applicant has been prejudicially affected by an act or omission of an affected by an act or omission of an affected by an act or omission of an authority, even though he has no proprietary authority, even though he has no proprietary authority, even though he has no proprietary or even a fiduciary interest in the subject or even a fiduciary interest in the subject or even a fiduciary interest in the subject matter. That apart, in exceptional cases matter. That apart, in exceptional cases matter. That apart, in exceptional cases even a stranger or a person who was not a even a stranger or a person who was not a even a stranger or a person who was not a party to the proceedings before the party to the proceedings before the party to the proceedings before the authority, but has a substantial and genuine authority, but has a substantial and genuine authority, but has a substantial and genuine interest in the subject matter of the interest in the subject matter of the interest in the subject matter of the proceedings will be covered by this rule. proceedings will be covered by this rule. proceedings will be covered by this rule. The principles enunciated in the English The principles enunciated in the English The principles enunciated in the English cases noticed above, are not inconsistent cases noticed above, are not inconsistent cases noticed above, are not inconsistent with it." with it." with it." Applying the aforesaid test, it becomes clear that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this petition. It is not the case that the land allotted to the respondent No.1 was allotted to him and was taken away. It is not that, that the land was put to auction, that his bid was highest but it was given to the respondent No.1 even though his bid was lower. Further it is not his case that by allotting :7: the land to the respondent No.1 any prejudice direct or indirect caused to him. Mrs. Agarwal tried to contend that requiring the petitioner to bid in the auction and not holding auction in respect of the land to the respondent No.1 is nothing but discrimination. The question is of locus-standi and from the judgment of the Supreme Court, it is clear that this petitioner has no proprietary or fudiciary interest in the subject matter. He has got the land in the auction and therefore the allotment of some other land by the Government cannot be said to be prejudicially affecting the interest of the petitioner. 6. If the land allotted to the respondent No.1 was put to auction then it is not certain whether at that time the petitioner would have participated. It is not certain that his bid would have been the highest. It is not certain that he was the only person who would have succeeded in the bid, and, therefore, it cannot be said that he has a vested interest in the land when it was given to the respondent No.1; and that even if auction was held, it cannot be said that he would have succeeded in the auction, which is a field of competition. :8: Therefore, this is a case where rightly held by the Authorities, this petitioner has no locus-standi to file this petition. 7. However, the petition when it comes for final hearing should not be generally thrown on this ground. But even on merits, the petition is required to be rejected. 8. Mrs. Agarwal drew my attention to Rule 26 of the Land Disposal Rules. Same Rule was relied upon by Mrs. Ambekar, therefore, I am reproducing the same: "26. Disposal of building sites.- (1) "26. Disposal of building sites.- (1) "26. Disposal of building sites.- (1) Except as otherwise provided in these rules, Except as otherwise provided in these rules, Except as otherwise provided in these rules, the occupancy rights in building sites shall the occupancy rights in building sites shall the occupancy rights in building sites shall be disposed of by the Collector under be disposed of by the Collector under be disposed of by the Collector under section 20 read with section 31 by public section 20 read with section 31 by public section 20 read with section 31 by public auction to the highest bidder, unless for auction to the highest bidder, unless for auction to the highest bidder, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the reasons to be recorded in writing, the reasons to be recorded in writing, the Collector thinks that in any particular Collector thinks that in any particular Collector thinks that in any particular case, there is good reason for granting the case, there is good reason for granting the case, there is good reason for granting the land without auction. land without auction. land without auction. (2) Where a building site is to be disposed (2) Where a building site is to be disposed (2) Where a building site is to be disposed of without auction under sub-rule(1), the of without auction under sub-rule(1), the of without auction under sub-rule(1), the Collector shall dispose of the site in Collector shall dispose of the site in Collector shall dispose of the site in occupancy rights under section 20 read with occupancy rights under section 20 read with occupancy rights under section 20 read with section 31 on inalienable tenure with the section 31 on inalienable tenure with the section 31 on inalienable tenure with the sanction of the Commissioner, if the sanction of the Commissioner, if the sanction of the Commissioner, if the occupancy price determined under sub-rule occupancy price determined under sub-rule occupancy price determined under sub-rule (3) does not exceed Rs.10,000 and with the (3) does not exceed Rs.10,000 and with the (3) does not exceed Rs.10,000 and with the sanction of the State Government, in other sanction of the State Government, in other sanction of the State Government, in other cases. cases. cases. :9: (3) The Collector shall determine the (3) The Collector shall determine the (3) The Collector shall determine the occupancy price of the site, regard being occupancy price of the site, regard being occupancy price of the site, regard being had to the following factors, that is to say had to the following factors, that is to say had to the following factors, that is to say :- :- :- (a) the sale prices of similar lands in (a) the sale prices of similar lands in (a) the sale prices of similar lands in the locality; the locality; the locality; (b) the situation of the building site; (b) the situation of the building site; (b) the situation of the building site; (c) the availability of, and demand for, (c) the availability of, and demand for, (c) the availability of, and demand for, similar lands; and similar lands; and similar lands; and (d) factors which are taken into account in (d) factors which are taken into account in (d) factors which are taken into account in determining the value of land under the determining the value of land under the determining the value of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894." Land Acquisition Act, 1894." Land Acquisition Act, 1894." No other provision of Land Revenue Code or even other provision of law was shown to me by either of the Advocates. 9. A bare reading of Rule 26 show that auction is one of the modes recognised by Rule 26 where the Collector can dispose of Government land but that is not the only mode. Because Rule 26(1) empowers the Collector to grant land without holding the auction. What is required is reasons to be recorded in the writing and obtaining sanction from the Commissioner. In the present case the Collector has given reasons for allotment of the land to the respondent No.1 and he has obtained sanction from the Commissioner as is clear from the record and orders reproduced by me above. Therefore, there is :10: no merit in this petition. Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Stay, if any, stands vacated. No order as to costs. (D.G. DESHPANDE, J. ) (D.G. DESHPANDE, J. ) (D.G. DESHPANDE, J. )