1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No.5747 of 2007 [Shri Govind Prabhu Gramin Vikas Sanstha & another Vs. Union of India & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. C.S. Kaptan, Adv., for the petitioners. Mr. F.T. Mirza, Adv., for respondent no.1. Mr. S.S. Doifode, AGP for respondent nos. 2 and 3. Mr. Manoj Sable, Adv., for respondent nos. 4 and 5. ----- CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND F.M. REIS, JJ. DATE : 07th September, 2009. 1. Heard learned Adv. Mr. Kaptan for petitioners, learned Adv. Mr. Mirza, for respondent no.1, learned AGP Mr. Doifode for respondent nos. 2 and 3 and learned Adv. Mr. Manoj Sable for respondent nos. 4 and 5. 2. Limited grievance made by Adv. Mr. Kaptan is that the petitioner-Trust gifted its land to respondent no.4 for erection of a Cattle Breeding Farm to be funded by respondents under 2 the Swarnajayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojna [SGSY]. He states that lateron because of some office objections, respondent no.4 recommended that the project cannot be given to present petitioners and as such according to him, the land taken from petitioners for the purpose of that project under above mentioned SGSY Scheme needs to be returned back to petitioners. 3. On 18th August, 2009, this Court passed the order calling upon respondents to file their appropriate responses in the matter. 4. Learned Adv. Mr. Sable states that respondent no.4 has written to State Govt., and is awaiting instructions. 5. Learned AGP states that the respondent- State will need more time to apply mind and to take a decision. 6. Adv. Mr. Mirza states that part of funds is released by respondent no.1 and respondent no.1 is not concerned with actual implementation. 7. At this stage, without going into more details, we find it appropriate to direct respondent no.2-State Govt., to take appropriate decision in the matter and to decide whether lands taken on gift from petitioners can be returned back to petitioners, as the project is 3 not being sanctioned to petitioners. We further find that for said purpose, the matter need not be kept pending before this Court. 8. Accordingly, we direct respondent no.2 to take appropriate decision as early as possible, and in any case, by 31st December, 2009. Said decision be taken after hearing the petitioners and a copy of order should be served upon petitioners within a period of two weeks after the decision is taken. If the decision goes adverse, the petitioners are at liberty to take further appropriate steps in the matter. 9. With these directions, we dispose of Writ Petition by allowing it partly. No costs. Judge Judge |Hedau| 4