NAGPUR, SEPT 19: In a significant verdict, the High Court bench here has set aside the then Revenue Minister Narayan Rane's order of September 30, 1996, restoring a 24.93-acre land to its original owner despite it being reserved for State and Central Government offices, in the Development Plan (DP) for Nagpur.The land in subject was part of a 51.65-acre excess land that was returned as unutilised to the State by the Visvesvaraiyya Regional College of Engineering (VRCE). The impugned order facilitated its restoration to the original owner, Uday Sonone, who, in turn, extended the land to a private construction firm, Himalaya Builders and Developers, for a housing project.The court has passed strictures against Rane for having exceeded his brief in issuing the impugned order in "total disregard of the policy under Government Resolutions (GRs) of October 10, 1973 and August 19, 1974 and a decision taken at the higher level of Chief Minister in 1989 to use the land for public purpose and setting up state and central offices".Earlier, the court had called for the original records from Mantrayalay that showed that a final decision at the CM's level was taken in 1989 to use this surplus land for offices of Central Ground Water Board, Telephone Exchange, State Bank of India, Indian Oil Corporation, Central Food Technology Institute, Central Board of Workers Education, Central Government Department of Explosives, Mahashtra State Electricity Board and other state and central offices.Without taking up the matter to the CM's level, the revenue minister could not have taken the decision, the Bench, comprising of Justices J.N. Patel and S.K. Shah, observed in its verdict, pronounced on September 14 over a public interest ligitation (PIL) filed by lawyer R.V. Gaikwad over three years ago.The court stated that the impugned order was "against public interest" not only for the way it was passed but also in terms of underestimating the present market value of the land having an undisputed potential for non-agriculture purpose.Effectively, the judgement brings to an end the protracted struggle by Gaikwad to ensure that the land did not go into the hands of commercial users and was restored for its rightful public purpose.In the 1960s, the government acquired a vast area at Parsodi, off the South Ambajhari Road, was establish the VRCE. The disputed land, belonging to Uday's father, Bhalchandra Sonone, was part of this acquired land for which the government paid a compensation of over Rs 2.35 lakh to the Sonones in 1968.The VRCE returned 51.65 acres of the excess land to the State in 1982 and the disputed land formed part of this area. Twelve years following this, Uday Sonone moved the District Collector urging that the land be restored to him since it had not be used.The Collector rejected his plea on various grounds including that of the land having been earmarked for public purpose and notified in the DP. A review plea was also dismissed and Sonone moved the Revenue Commissioner, who observed that the matter did not fall under his jurisdiction. Later, Sonone filed a plea before the Revenue Minister and the same was settled in his favour on September 30, 1996, by Rane.In his PIL filed later, Gaikwad argued that the impugned order was violative of the two GRs of 1973 and 1974 that specifically excluded restoration of lands which have non-agriculture potential. That, the policy was applicable only to agriculture lands and the government disregarded the fact that the land in subject had been earmarked for public purpose.The intervenor construction firm contended against this by stating that the petitioner had no locus standi since he had no interest in the land. The impugned order could have been challenged only if it was passed by an authority having no jurisdiction or it being a case of irregular exercise of power.After an exhaustive argument over the two GRs, their applicability to agricultural and non-agricultural lands under circumstances when they were acquired and the prevailing situation, the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and rules under the Land Acquisition Manual, the court held that the minister was wrong in issuing the impugned order.It observed that the policy decision under GR of 1973 was by way of concession to agricultural land and not the non-agricultural land or those lands that acquired non-agricultural potentiality. The policy of concession would not create any right.Citing a Supreme Court judgement, the court observed that even the apex court has held that an acquired land, if not used for the purpose of its acquisition, should be used only for public purpose. In case of such land not being used for public purpose, it should be disposed of by public auction.
