On March 3, 1966 the State Government made an order accordingly.
The allotment was assailed by the respondents, and they represented to the State Government that after further inquiry the land should be reserved for deserving claimants.
They alleged that they had number been allotted any land yet for carrying on business at Yeotmal, and inasmuch as land sites were being released to refugees or displaced persons they claimed that having been companypelled to migrate from West Pakistan to India during the partition of 1947 they were entitled to the grant of such plots.
The State Government, acting on the report of the Commissioner, Nagpur Division, rejected all the applications.
The appellants, however, maintained that they had acquired a right to the land in terms of the order dated March 3, 1966 and that they companyld number be divested of those rights.
They urged that numberreason able opportunity had been given to them to press their claims for grant of plots after the Government had reversed its earlier decision number to grant land, that the appellants had been unduly favoured and that the order was bad in law because the plots had been granted without holding an auction.
and its market value, worked out on the basis of recorded sale transactions, and taking into regard the companymercial purpose for which the land was intended, indicated a premium of Rs.
During the pendency of the writ petition a statement was made on behalf of the State Government that it was prepared to companysider the claims of the respondents.
1 to 16 applied on March 15, 1963 for the grant of sixteen plots of land included in Government Nazul Plot No.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 18th June 1969 of the Bombay High Court in Misc.
The State Government granted the plots to the appellants as shop sites in Bhumidhari right without auction on payment of premium, and the decision was companyveyed in a Memorandum dated March 3, 1966.
There were applications from other claimants also.
The Collector submitted a report dated November 23, 1965 suggesting the allotment of plots for the companystruction of shops on the footing that each plot would measure 192 sq.
The Collector was requested to frame suitable proposals and to submit them to the Government.
The appellants say that they sought a review of the order of the Government, and on June 28, 1965 the Government reversed its order and decided to grant plots on permanent lease to the appellants.
He recommended further that the plots may be granted without auction and in Bhumidhari right on payment of premium for companystructing shops thereon for carrying on business.
139 of 1968.
It was also companytended that the power to grant the plots was vested in the Collector and number the State Government.
1 to 16.
in area and having regard to its market value each allottee should be required to pay a premium of Rs.
By its judgment dated March 14, 1968 the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order granting plots to the appellants and directed the State Government and its officers to take appropriate action on the several claims for allotment of land.
The Collector, Yeotmal submitted a report to the Government pointing out that each plot would be 192 sq.
31/1 Sheet No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The respondents Nos.
The appellants made a similar application on May 16, 1964 and it is their case that they had also applied earlier in the same behalf on February 27, 1962.
440 N of 1970.
Civil Appln.
49 D in Yeotmal Town for the purpose of companystructing shops thereon.
Naunit Lal, for the Appellant.
The respondents filed a writ petition before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court challenging allotment made by the Government in favour of the appellants.
N. Shroff, for Respondents Nos.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATHAK, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court quashing the grant of Nazul land to the appellants on a writ petition filed by the respondents Nos.
G. Ratnaparkhi for Respondents Nos.
17 19.
