Facts: In 1961, the State Government granted a large tract of forest land to Ambernath Sahakari Samudayik Shetki Society (the Appellant) for agricultural purposes, subject to certain conditions. A key condition was that the land should be brought under cultivation within one year, failing which the State could resume the land. Over time, disputes arose regarding the extent of cultivation, with the State alleging non-compliance and the Appellant claiming that portions of the land were unsuitable for cultivation due to rocky terrain, a stream, and forest cover. The Appellant also contended that they had used the uncultivable land for planting trees as permitted. Show-cause notices were issued, and resumption orders were passed and challenged repeatedly. The land was also subject to reservations under a sanctioned development plan.
Procedural Posture: This Letters Patent Appeal was filed against the judgment of a Single Judge, who dismissed the Appellant's Writ Petition No. 2267 of 1990. The Writ Petition challenged the State Government's order to resume the land due to non-fulfillment of the conditions of the original grant. The Single Judge upheld the resumption order.
Issue: Did the Single Judge err in upholding the State Government's order to resume the land granted to the Appellant, considering the Appellant's claims of partial compliance with the grant conditions and the subsequent developments, including reservations under the development plan? Specifically, did the Appellant violate the conditions of the land grant by failing to cultivate the land as required, thereby justifying the resumption by the State Government?
Holding: No, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. The Court upheld the Single Judge's decision, affirming the State Government's right to resume the land.
Reasoning: The Court found a "gross violation" of the grant conditions, noting that the Appellant failed to cultivate the land as required and instead allowed it to be encroached upon and used for unauthorized purposes like constructing homes and chawls. The Court relied on a Panchnama dated 26th October 2010, which indicated that only a small portion of the land was used for agriculture, with the rest being misused. The Court emphasized that the land was granted on a "gratis basis/purely exgratia" for agricultural purposes, and the Appellant's failure to comply with this condition justified the resumption. The Court also considered the fact that the land was now reserved for public purposes under the development plan, making its resumption even more crucial. The Court stated, "the submission made by Mr.Damle in rejoinder that the show-cause notice dated 19th August 1987 was issued only in respect of 97 acres which was sought to be assumed and that the remaining 113 acres was cultivated, hence, not a subject-matter of resumption, does not impress us, inasmuch as, both the Panchnama dated 26th October 2010 and the order dated 3rd January 2011 categorically record that the land was not used for the purpose of cultivation as mandated in the grant dated 15th January 1963 and the letter/order dated 21st October 1964".