Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Suryakant Shamrao Kale vs Pandharpur Municipal Council on 14 February, 2023
Bench: V. Ramasubramanian, Pankaj Mithal
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO…………….. OF 2023
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C.) NO.9634/2018)
SURYAKANT SHAMRAO KALE APPELLANT(s)
VERSUS
PANDHARPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard Mr. Dilip Annasaheb Taur, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Vinay Navare, learned counsel for the respondent Municipal Council.
In the year 1984, the respondent-Municipal Council allotted industrial plots of land to various persons under a policy then in force for the development of small scale industries in the area. The appellant herein was one of the beneficiaries of such an allotment on a leasehold basis.
Subsequently, the respondent-Municipal Council passed a resolution on 24.02.1989, to transfer title to those plots of land in favour of the allottees. The sanction of the State Government was obtained on 05.01.1990 and the sale deed itself was executed.
Signature Not Verified
However, the policy of the Municipal Council and the Digitally signed by State were challenged before the High Court in a Writ Petition NIRMALA NEGI Date: 2023.02.18 14:16:22 IST Reason:
being W.P.No.488/1990. The High Court, by a judgment dated 1 15.02.2003 set aside both the resolutions of the Municipal Council as well as the allotments made in favour of the individuals.
In other words, the allotment made in favour of all the lessees/transferees got cancelled by the said order of the High Court.
However, the Urban Development Department of the State Government thereafter came up with certain guidelines, by proceedings dated 27.05.2005. By these guidelines, Government decided to allow some of the allottees to retain their possession, subject to their satisfying certain conditions.
The respondent-Municipal Council thereafter filed a Special Civil Suit bearing No.95/2007 on the file of Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pandharpur for recovery of possession and mesne profits. The Trial Court dismissed the suit.
However, the First Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the Trial Court and granted a decree of recovery of possession. The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court were also confirmed by the High Court in a second appeal, forcing the appellant to come up with the above civil appeal.
Before we proceed to consider the only issue that has to be dealt with by this Court, it has to be remembered that 2 admittedly the appellant was allotted the plot way back on 09.11.1984 and a conveyance was also made to him on 1990. Therefore, he is in possession of the plot for the past about 38 years.
The relevant portion of the guidelines issued by the State Government in the year 2005 by GR No.MUP- 2201/2505/PK.167/2002/NV-19, dated 27.05.2005, reads as follows:
“..Hence in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 26 of the Maharashtra Municipal Council (Transfer of Immovable properties) Rules, 1983 framed under Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats & Industrial Township Act, 1965, by granting exemption for Rule No.7 and 8, as a special case and for this purpose issue following orders-
1) The plot holders who are doing business as per rules and are from Lower Income Group, Backward Class who are carrying out their traditional occupation, shall be given plots with ownership rights.
2) The Petitioners who are educated unemployed youths and desirous to start Units shall be allotted remaining open plots by charging rates decided by Three-member committee.
3) The plot-holders who are not running units as per rules, the possession of such plots shall be recovered by concerned Municipal Council and further shall be re-allotted by inviting applications by charging rates decided by Three-
member committee..” 3 The main ground on which the respondent-Municipal Council filed the suit for recovery of possession, as seen from paragraph 4 of the plaint was that the appellant was not from the low income group and that he was neither from the backward classes nor carrying on any traditional occupation. In other words, the main ground on which the respondent sought recovery of possession was that all the conditions as stipulated in clause (1) should be cumulatively satisfied by a person to fall within the ambit of the guideline dated 27.05.2005.
But a reading of the clause (1) of the guidelines extracted above would show that the same is capable of being interpreted in both ways.
While it is possible to say that all conditions should be satisfied cumulatively, it is also possible to say that they can be read disjunctively, in view of the absence of the word “and” and also in view of the punctuation mark “,” (coma).
Therefore, we are of the view that the appellant having been in possession of the property for the past 38 years and having established through evidence that he is running an automobile shop and steel fabrication unit in the properties from the year 1989, is entitled to the benefit of the Government guidelines. The High Court and the First Appellate Court committed an error in granting a decree in favour of the respondent-Municipal Council.
4 Therefore, the appeal is allowed and impugned judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court and the High Court are set aside and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court are restored. There will be no order as to costs.
.......................J. (V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN ) .......................J. (PANKAJ MITHAL ) NEW DELHI;
14th FEBRUARY, 2023
5
ITEM NO.22 COURT NO.14 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 9634/2018
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 20-02-2018 in SA No. 508/2017 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Bombay) SURYAKANT SHAMRAO KALE Petitioner(s) VERSUS PANDHARPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.53842/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.53843/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 68016/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 68015/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Date : 14-02-2023 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL For Petitioner(s) Mr. Dilip Annasaheb Taur, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv.
Ms. G. Karthika, Adv.
Ms. Abha R. Sharma, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order which is placed on the file.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(RADHA SHARMA) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
6