Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against Income Tax Reassessment, Directs Petitioner to File Appeal Adultery Requires Proof of Sexual Relations, Mere Emotional Attachment is No Ground to Deny Maintenance: MP High Court Co-Sharer Cannot Sell Specific Land Without Partition: Punjab & Haryana High Court Declares Mutation Illegal When Best Evidence is Withheld, an Adverse Inference Must Be Drawn Against the Prosecution: Supreme Court Slams State for Procedural Lapses When the State Itself Did Not Challenge the Earlier Judgment, Third Parties Cannot Litigate on Its Behalf: Supreme Court When Parties Have Agreed to a Fixed Compensation, Courts Cannot Rewrite the Contract to Award Additional Damages: Supreme Court When an Employer Deprives an Employee of Work Through Illegal Action, They Must Face the Consequences: Supreme Court Condemns State Transport Corporation’s “Fraud on Court” Possession Handed Over Before the Sale Deed Makes the Agreement a Conveyance: Supreme Court Rejects Appeal Against Stamp Duty Demand Promissory Estoppel Cannot Override Public Interest: Supreme Court Upholds Goa’s Power Tariff Rebate Withdrawal Tenants Cannot Stall Public Projects Indefinitely; Eviction Under MRTP Act is Legally Valid: Bombay High Court High Court Cannot Reassess Labour Court's Findings Like an Appellate Body: Delhi HC Consensual Physical Relationship Over Four Years Cannot Constitute Rape Under Section 376(2)(n): Karnataka High Court An Injured Witness Comes with a Built-In Guarantee of Truth: Allahabad HC Eviction Cannot Be Ordered Solely Because Evidence is Unrebutted: Kerala HC Encroachment Claims Do Not Justify Forcible Dispossession: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Injunction, Dismisses Appeal Limitation | An Educated Litigant Cannot Claim the Same Protection as an Illiterate One: Delhi HC Madras High Court Dismisses PhonePe’s Trademark Infringement Suit Against BundlePe & LatePe Bare Injunction Suit Unsustainable Without Declaration of Title When Ownership is Disputed: Karnataka High Court SARFASI | Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies Essential in SARFAESI Matters: Kerala High Court Once Penalty Period Ends, Employee Must Be Reconsidered for Promotion: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Grant of Land for Public Purpose Does Not Divest Ownership Rights: Bombay High Court on Shri Ganpati Panchayat Sansthan's Reversionary Rights

17 January 2025 5:35 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


The Bombay High Court, with Justice A.S. Chandurkar and Justice Rajesh S. Patil presiding, rendered a judgment in Writ Petition No. 8434 of 2009, filed by Shri Vijaysinh Patwardhan, the Sole Managing Trustee of Shri Ganpati Panchayat Sansthan, Sangli. The petition requested the return of land previously granted by the Sansthan to the Sangli State for use as a public hospital, which has since been relocated.

"Purpose of Appropriation Ceases, Land Reverts to the Sansthan": Court Interprets Section 19(b) of the 1940 Act

The Court emphasized the legal framework of Section 19(b) of the Shri Ganpati Panchayat Sansthan Act, 1940, which allows land granted by the Sansthan for public purposes to revert to the Trust if the original purpose ceases.

“When the present purpose of the appropriation comes to an end, the land must revert to the Sansthan as its property unless the State lawfully acquires it.”

The Court referred to its earlier ruling in Sangli Nagarpalika v. Managing Trustee of Shri Ganpati Panchayat Sansthan (1974), which clarified that the Sansthan retains ownership of the land even during its appropriation for public use.

Pre-Constitutional Laws Are Enforceable: Article 372 of the Constitution

The Court upheld the enforceability of the Shri Ganpati Panchayat Sansthan Act, 1940, as a "law in force" under Article 372 of the Constitution. It ruled that the Act continues to have binding force even after India's independence, reinforcing the rights of the Sansthan to reclaim its land under Section 19(b).

Government’s Argument: “Land Needed for Ancillary Purposes” Rejected

The State of Maharashtra argued that while the hospital had been shifted, the land was still required for ancillary purposes, such as providing housing for hospital staff and future health facilities.

The Court dismissed this contention, noting that:

“The grant was specifically for running a civil hospital. Any ancillary use or new public purpose requires proper acquisition of the land under law.”

The Court also clarified that the Municipal Corporation had no claim to the land, as the original grant was to the Sangli State for a hospital.

Alternative Remedy and Maintainability of Writ Petition
The State and Respondents contended that the Sansthan should approach a civil court or claim compensation instead of seeking relief through a writ petition.

The Court rejected this argument, stating:

“The Sansthan is entitled to invoke its statutory rights under Section 19(b) through a writ petition. Availability of compensation or an alternative remedy does not preclude the Sansthan from seeking reversion of the land.”

Court Directions: Land to Be Returned or Acquired
The Bombay High Court directed the Government of Maharashtra to:

Return the land to the Sansthan within three months, as its purpose of appropriation had ended.
Alternatively, acquire the land in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act if it is still required for a public purpose.

Additionally, the Sansthan expressed its willingness to provide alternate accommodation for hospital staff occupying a portion of the land. The Court instructed both parties to finalize the modalities for this arrangement within eight weeks.

The judgment reaffirms the principles of ownership and reversionary rights under the Shri Ganpati Panchayat Sansthan Act, 1940, while emphasizing the necessity for the State to follow proper legal procedures for acquisition.

Date of Decision: January 7, 2025
 

Similar News