Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1260 (BOM)

Abdul Hameed Jamal v. Nagpur Improvement Trust

2008-09-01

ANOOP V.MOHTA, C.L.PANGARKAR

body2008
ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.:- The petitioner is the owner of N.I.T. plot No.48 mauza Bidipeth, Nagpur under Sakkardara Street Scheme, Nagpur. The said plot was allotted by respondent no.1 in the year 1987. The petitioner has constructed house thereon and resided therein. There is an irregular piece of land admeasuring 438 sq. ft. adjoining to the above plot of the petitioner. The petitioner applied for grant of said land in the year 1987 and it was considered by respondent no.1 by resolution dated 25-10-1991. Respondent no.2 had also applied for the said plot being owner of a regular piece of land just adjacent to the irregular piece of land as referred above. His claim was negatived. Therefore, he filed Civil Suit No.2567/1991 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Nagpur. The petitioner tried to intervene in the said suit by an application dated 14-2-1992. However, the said application was rejected. The petitioner filed a civil revision application against the said order which was pending at the time of filing of the writ petition, but disposed of later on. 2. Respondent no. 1 by notice dated 10-6-1992 called the petitioner, as well as, respondent no.2 and after hearing both the parties passed impugned resolution dated 21-12-1992 in favour of respondent no.2, thereby impliedly reversing the resolution dated 25-101991. 3. The Nagpur Improvement Trust Land Disposal Rules 1983 (NIT Rules) are relevant Rules for the purpose of present petition. The relevant clause 6(3) of the Rules is reproduced as under "(3) Irregular pieces of land not exceeding 300 square Meters which cannot be sold as individual plots may be transferred to a holder of an adjacent larger plot who has asked for such adjacent irregular pieces of land; or lands to be exchanged with adjoining private or Government land for the purposes of making layout regular or for adjustment of boundaries of private properties the acquisition of which is proposed to be abandoned or has been abandoned, shall be alloted by special allotment with the previous sanction of the State Government. The premium for transfer of such land shall be determined by the Committee constituted under sub-rule (2) of rule 7." 4. We have gone through the record, as well as, undisputed map on the record. There is no dispute that the plot of the petitioner is rectangular whereas the plot of respondent no.2 bearing No.12/B is triangular. The premium for transfer of such land shall be determined by the Committee constituted under sub-rule (2) of rule 7." 4. We have gone through the record, as well as, undisputed map on the record. There is no dispute that the plot of the petitioner is rectangular whereas the plot of respondent no.2 bearing No.12/B is triangular. As noted above, the object of the Rule is to regularise irregular pieces of land to a holder of an adjacent larger plot who has asked for such adjacent irregular pieces of land for the purpose of making layout regular. Therefore, in order to have regular alignment, respondent no.1, as respondent no.2 applied for allotment of 483 sq. ft. of land, granted allotment in favour of respondent no.2 in conformity with the Rules in question. We see there is no reason to interfere with the said decision, as it was resolved by respondent no.1 by giving hearing both the parties. The impugned resolution so passed was noted after giving full opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The facet of dismissal of the intervention application in the suit filed by respondent no.2 challenging the resolution dated 25-10-1991 is also just and cannot be overruled. Based upon the said suit and proceedings, the respondents acted and by impugned resolution alloted the adjacent plot to respondent no.2 which is in conformity with Rule 6(3) of NIT Rules. In view of this, we see no reason to accept the case of malafide and/or arbitrariness. There are no material and details on the record to justify malafides (Girias Investment Private Ltd. and another Vs. State of Karnataka and others, (2008) 7 SCC 53 ). The resolution dated 25-10-1991 was passed in favour of petitioner and but not reversed, that cannot be sufficient ground to grant the plot in favour of the petitioner by cancelling impugned resolution dated 21-12-1992. 5. We are also convinced that whole purpose of the Rule is to make the plot regular. By granting this irregular plot in favour of respondent no.2 made the plot regular. It could have been irregular if granted in favour of petitioner as his rectangular plot is adjacent to the triangular plot in question. Now, respondent no.2's plot after this allotment became regular which is as per the rule in question. By granting this irregular plot in favour of respondent no.2 made the plot regular. It could have been irregular if granted in favour of petitioner as his rectangular plot is adjacent to the triangular plot in question. Now, respondent no.2's plot after this allotment became regular which is as per the rule in question. In view of this, we are of the view that the action of the respondent is within the frame work of law and record and needs no interference. In this background, Resolution dated 21-12-1992 as finally adopted by resolution dated 24-10-1993 is just, proper and legal and is strictly in consonance with the rules and therefore, it cannot be said to be without jurisdiction and/or contrary to the provisions of law. The petition is, therefore, accordingly dismissed. Interim order also stands vacated. No costs. Petition dismissed.