wp3418.11.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.3418 OF 2011 Rampal Modiramji Thakur Vs. Shaskiya Doodh Yojna and another. ............................................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ............................................................................................................................................................. Shri P.S.Patil, Counsel for the Petitioner. Mrs.Kalyani Deshpande, AGP for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : R. K.DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 05th DECEMBER, 2011. Undisputedly, the land in question belongs to the Government. Hence, the provisions of the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955, are applicable. The land in question was allotted to the respondent no.2 – society for running the Canteen. However, instead of running the Canteen on its own, the respondent no.2 has created a sub-lease in favour of the petitioner who started running the Canteen. Hence, proceedings under Section 4 of the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955, were initiated. The Residential Deputy Collector, Amravati, passed an order on 5.3.2011, directing the petitioner to hand over the possession of the land in question to the Government Milk Scheme. Against it, Regular Civil Appeal No.65 of 2011 was preferred in the District Court, under Section 7 of the said Act. The appeal has been dismissed by the learned District Judge-5, Amravati, on 18.6.2011 and hence, this writ petition. The Appellate Authority has recorded the finding that the sub-lease was created in favour of the petitioner without .....2/- wp3418.11.odt 2 obtaining the prior permission of the Government. The stand of the respondent no.2 – society which was allotted the land is that such consent was obtained from the Government for creating a sub-lease. However, there is nothing placed on record to show that the consent in writing was obtained. The fact that the respondent no.2 – society is supporting the claim of the petitioner is of no consequence, when the permission was required to be obtained from the respondent no.1, which has stated that no such permission was granted. In view of this, no interference is called for in the order impugned. The petition is dismissed. JUDGE BrWankhede ...../-