1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5656 OF 2010 (Peoples Progressive Education Society vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5657 OF 2010 (Shrikrishna Shikshan Sanstha vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : MARCH 31, 2011 Heard Shri Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Shri Sambre, learned Government Pleader for the respondents. It is brought to the notice of this Court the interim order dated 22/12/2010 passed by this Court in the present petitions, which reads thus : “Heard. These petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are directed against the order passed by the Collector on 4/7/2009 cancelling allotment of lands to the petitioners. If one turns to the impugned order passed by the Collector, it would be clear that the impugned 2 order to cancel allotment is based on the decision taken by the State Government to cancel the allotment of surplus lands allotted to the various persons and/or Trusts and/or Societies against the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling Act and wherein terms and conditions of allotments have been breached. In addition to that, it is also mentioned that as per recommendations of One Man Committee, in W.P. No. 55 of 2004, the proposal for cancellation of allotment of land admeasuring 7680 sq. mtr. Of land from Survey No. 429/1 at Mouza Godhani (Rly) Nagpur has been taken. It is, therefore, clear that the impugned order of the Collector is not an independent decision. It is based on the decision taken by the Special Committee constituted by the Ministry for implementation of the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling Act and recommendations of One Man Committee. In the above circumstances, during the course of hearing, learned Additional Govt. Pleader was advised to take instructions from the State as to whether the petitioners can be afforded an opportunity of hearing by the Special Committee so that the challenge to the impugned order based on the breach of principles of natural justice can be taken care. However, it appears that in spite of grant of more than three adjournments, no positive instructions have been received by the learned Additional 3 Government Pleader. From the attitude of the State, it appears that in an half hearted manner, the State wants to take action of cancellation knowing full well that it cannot be supported on the basis law. It appears that State wants that the order of cancellation of allotment should be set aside by the Court so that the beneficiaries of the lands, mostly politicians and their Trusts and Societies, can retain that land on the terms and conditions on which it were allotted throwing blame at the door of the judiciary. In other words, the idea is to frustrate the report of One Man Committee by not taking action in accordance with law and just to make show of acting upon the report of One Man Committee. We hope the State Government will again examine the issue in its right perspective and consider the necessity of affording opportunity of effective hearing. In order to get response from the State, we adjourn this petition to 10.1.2011.” Shri Sambre, learned Government Pleader expressed inability to assist the Court for want of instructions from the State Government. The earlier Division Bench of this Court passed interim order dated 22/12/2010 referred to hereinabove and granted time till 10/1/2011 to the Government Pleader to seek instructions from the 4 State Government. The writ petitions were thereafter adjourned on 17/1/2011, 20/1/2011, 31/1/2011, 8/2/2011 and 17/3/2011 at the request of the Government Pleader to enable him to seek instructions in this regard. However, in spite of sufficient time given to the Government Pleader to seek instructions, the Government failed to give necessary instructions to the Government Pleader, which is a matter of concern. In view of the observations made by the earlier Division Bench in the above referred interim order, we feel it appropriate that the petitioners be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the Collector and the Collector should take a fresh decision in respect of cancellation of allotment of lands of the petitioners. The impugned order shall not come in the way of re-consideration of the issue by the Collector. With these observations, the petitions are disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE khj 5