JUDGMENT - D.R. DHANUKA, J.:---This notice of motion is taken out by the defendants for an order of the Court to the effect that the Consent Order dated 7th April, 1992, Copy whereof is Exhibit 1 to the Affidavit in support of the motion herein be vacated and the defendants be granted permission to construct the extension building of their existing school i.e. Canossa High School etc. upon the suit plot bearing Survey No. 47, Hissa No. 5 or C.T.S. No. 22 in village Mulgaon, Taluka Andheri of Bombay Suburban District admeasuring 1006.5 sq. metres. The material facts having bearing on this subject matter of this notice of motion are briefly summarised hereinafter. 2. One Mr. Joseph Anthony Nunes was the owner of the above referred plot of land, more particularly described in Exhibit "A" to the plaint i.e. plot bearing City Survey No. 22 admeasuring about 1103 sq. yards or thereabouts. It is the plaintiff's case as set out in the plaint that by an agreement of sale dated 30th July, 1981, the said Mr. Joseph Nunes had agreed to sell the said plot of land in favour of the plaintiff. It is also the plaintiff's case that on 3rd August, 1981 the said Shri Joseph Nunes had handed over a "letter of possession" to the plaintiff in the suit. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance against the said Shri Joseph Nunes in respect of the said property being Suit No. 2348 of 1989. 3. The defendants are trustees of Canossian Society, a public charitable trust duly registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The defendants claim to be in possession of the suit land for several years. It is the defendants' case that the defendants were in possession of the suit land for more than 25 years in the year 1989. 4. The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendants for a declaration that the defendants had no right, title and interest in the suit property. The plaintiff also prayed for a decree for eviction of the defendants from the suit property on the ground that the defendant had no title whatsoever to the suit property. The defendants had also filed Suit No. 2688 of 1989 against Mr. Joseph Nunes in this Court for obtaining certain reliefs as set out therein. 5. The plaintiff also prayed for a decree for eviction of the defendants from the suit property on the ground that the defendant had no title whatsoever to the suit property. The defendants had also filed Suit No. 2688 of 1989 against Mr. Joseph Nunes in this Court for obtaining certain reliefs as set out therein. 5. In this suit, the plaintiff had taken out notices of motions being Notice of Motion No. 2493 of 1989 and 2524 of 1989. In these notices of motions a consent order was passed by this Court on 7th April, 1992, where under the defendants in this suit agreed and undertook to this Court not to create any third party rights or interest in respect of the suit property and not to induct any third parties therein. The defendants in this suit also agreed that the defendants shall not put up any construction on the suit property as more particularly set out in Clause 3 of the consent terms filed in the two notices of motions in this suit. The plaintiff agreed and undertook not to interfere with the peaceful possession and user of the suit property by the defendant and their students without due process of law. 6. I shall now set out the facts relied upon by the defendants as relevant subsequent legal events including the background facts on the basis of which defendants have taken out the present notice of motion for vacating of the said consent order and for being relieved of the undertaking given by the defendants under the consent terms Exhibit "1" to the affidavit in support of the notice of motion. There is no specific prayer to the effect that the defendants be relieved of the undertaking set out in the consent terms herein but the same is implicit in prayer (a) of the motion. 7.The suit land was declared by the Competent Authority as a surplus excess land in the hand of Shri Joseph Anthony Nunes, the owner of the land. On 29th March, 1982, the Competent Authority constituted under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976 issued a notification under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the said Act inviting persons having interest in the said land to prefer their claims, if any, within 30 days from the publication of the said notification. On 29th March, 1982, the Competent Authority constituted under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976 issued a notification under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the said Act inviting persons having interest in the said land to prefer their claims, if any, within 30 days from the publication of the said notification. On 23rd March, 1984, the Competent Authority issued final notification in this behalf as contemplated in sub-section (3) section 10 of the said Act. A copy of the said notification is Exhibit 4 to the affidavit in support of the present motion. The said notification recites that the suit land was declared as land in excess of the ceiling limit and was acquired by the Government of Maharashtra from the date of publication of the said notification. In the said notification it was recited that the said land had vested absolutely in the Government of Maharashtra free from all encumbrances from 23rd March, 1984. The said notification was published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette on 5th April, 1984. By virtue of the provisions of law contained in section 10(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976, the said land described in the said notifications and described in Exhibit "A" to the plaint was deemed to have vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances. Thus w.e.f. 5th April, 1984 neither Joseph Nunes nor the present plaintiff herein has any right, title and interest of any nature whatsoever in the suit land. 8.The subsequent events which are directly germane for deciding this notice of motion are now set out for ready reference. The said plot of land was shown reserved for Secondary School for revised development plan. The defendants trust is already running a school on the adjoining land. The defendants as trustees of Canossian Daughters of Charity Society made an application to the Government of Maharashtra for grant of the said land in favour of the defendants society for educational purpose. The said request was accepted by the Government of Maharashtra. Ultimately on 7th July, 1993, the Government of Maharashtra issued an Order granting the said land in favour of the said society at the concessional lease rent of 25 percent of the market price prevailing on 1st February, 1976 on the terms and conditions set out therein. The said request was accepted by the Government of Maharashtra. Ultimately on 7th July, 1993, the Government of Maharashtra issued an Order granting the said land in favour of the said society at the concessional lease rent of 25 percent of the market price prevailing on 1st February, 1976 on the terms and conditions set out therein. The said terms and conditions are as under : (1) The concessional lease rent may be calculated on the basis of a provisional Market rate of Rs. 250 as on 1-2-1976. The final valuation should be got done immediately from the Deputy Director, Urban Development Department. An undertaking should be obtained from the said society to the effect that it will pay the differential amount with interest in accordance with prevailing rules if the final price is more than the provisional price fixed above and that it will do so within one month from the date of notice to pay without any complaints. (2) Canossian Daughters of Charity should also provide facilities for imparting education through the Marathi medium of instruction". 9. The defendants have already paid the necessary amount payable to the Government of Maharashtra as directed by the Government of Maharashtra. On 18th August, 1993, legal possession of the suit land was handed over by the Government of Maharashtra to the defendants trust. Physical possession of the suit land was already with the defendants. The claim of the defendants is duly supported by large number of documents annexed to the affidavit in support of the notice of motion. A solemn agreement was executed in this behalf between the Collector, Bombay Suburban District and the trust. The defendants have already paid a sum of rupees 62,906.25 to the Government of Maharashtra. The necessary plans for construction of land are already sanctioned. The defendants now claim title in respect of the suit land not by adverse possession as claimed earlier but by virtue of the grant of the said land by the Government of Maharashtra as aforesaid. 10. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff has applied for adjournment of this notice of motion. Application for adjournment is refused as there is no justification for the said application. 11. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff has also made submissions on merits. 10. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff has applied for adjournment of this notice of motion. Application for adjournment is refused as there is no justification for the said application. 11. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff has also made submissions on merits. The learned Counsel has submitted that the defendants ought to have disclosed to the Court on 7th April, 1992 that the suit land had already vested in the Government of Maharashtra w.e.f. 5th April, 1984. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the defendants are not entitled to the relief sought for by this notice of motion in view of the crucial events having taken place before passing of the abovereferred consent order and not after passing of the abovereferred consent Order. The answer provided by the learned counsel for defendants is plain and simple. The defendants contend that the defendants acquired new rights in the suit land only on 7th July, 1993 when the Order dated 7th July, 1993, was passed by the Government of Maharashtra in favour of the defendant society, copy whereof is Exhibit "6" to the affidavit in support. On 29th July, 1993, agreement Exhibit 9 was executed between the Collector, Bombay Suburban District, Bombay and the Trustees of the abovereferred society. On 4th August, 1993, the defendants made the payment of Rs. 62,906.25 p. to the Government of Maharashtra as consideration amount for the said land. Formal Kabje Pavti was executed by the prescribed authorities in favour of the defendants in respect of the said land only on 18th August, 1993. These events are certainly the subsequent events on which the defendants are entitled to rely upon in support of the motion herein. 12. At one point of time a view was taken by some of the High Courts to the effect that a consent order or consent terms could not be varied except by consent of the parties. In the case of (Smt. Periyakkal and others v. Smt. Dakshyani)1, A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 428, the Honourable Supreme Court took a different view of the matter. This was a case where extension of time granted under the consent decree passed by the Court was prayed for. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in rare cases the Court could grant extension even in such a case where the ends of justice so required. This was a case where extension of time granted under the consent decree passed by the Court was prayed for. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in rare cases the Court could grant extension even in such a case where the ends of justice so required. It is well settled law that a party can be relieved from an undertaking given to the Court if the relief prayed for is justified by subsequent legal events and the justice of the case is on side of the party, seeking such a relief. The Court undoubtedly has inherent jurisdiction to set aside the interlocutory Orders passed by consent. It would be a travesty of justice to prevent the defendants from serving the cause of education by constructing the extension building on the suit plot of land in view of Government grant of the suit land in favour of the defendants. The plaintiff has now no right, title and interest in the suit land as a matter of fact the suit itself has become infructuous. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff would now be challenging the notifications dated 23rd March, 1984 issued by the Government of Maharashtra under section 10(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling Regulation) Act, 1976. It is too late for the plaintiff to do so. 13. After taking an overall view of the matter I reached the conclusion that in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court the Notice of Motion must be made absolute. 14. The defendants have sought a prayer to the effect that the consent order dated 7th April, 1992 be vacated by the Court in view of the subsequent events detailed in Affidavit in support of the motion being affidavit dated 10th November, 1995. The said prayer is granted. The defendants are also relieved from the undertakings set out in the said consent terms with immediate effect. The defendants are under an obligation to comply with all the conditions imposed by the Government of Maharashtra on the defendants by order dated 7th July, 1993 and also provide facilities for imparting education through the Marathi Medium of instruction as stipulated. 15. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no Order as to costs. 16. 15. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no Order as to costs. 16. The Prothonotary Senior Master is directed to place the suit itself on board on 8th January, 1996, so that the Court can consider as to whether the suit should be dismissed, the same having become infructuous by operation of law. 17. The learned counsel for the plaintiff applies for stay of the operation of the order passed by the Court today. The application made for stay is totally unjust. The application is, therefore, refused. No order as to costs. 18. The parties are authorised to take further steps on the basis of ordinary copy of this Order duly authenticated by the Associate of this Court. 19. Issue of certified copy expedited. Motion made absolute.