MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE DAMOH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This .appeal by special leave arises from a suit instituted by the appellant, the Municipal Committee, Damoh, against the two respondents, the State of Madhya Pradesh, and the Agricultural Association Ltd., Damoh respectively. The property in dispute is a grain market known as the Mawganj, Grain Market in Damoh. The lands on which the said market has been built, were acquired by the appellant some time in about 1902 and they continued in possession of the appellant thereafter. Later, the present grain market was built upon the lands and the same was being managed by the appellant in accordance with the bye-laws sanctioned by respondent No. 1 as per its Notification No. 8006/2136-M-VII, dated the 13th December, 1930. The profits accruing from this market were received by the appellant. On the 8th June. 1956, respondent No. 1 issued a Notification No. 2760-2394-X under section 3 of the Central Provinces and Berar Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1935 (No. 29 of 1935) (hereinafter called 'the Act'). THIS notification declared that the boundaries of the market known as Mawganj Agricultural Market at Damoh would be a market for the sale and purchase of agricultural produce. The same day another Notification No. 2758-2394-X was issued by respondent No. 1 by which the management of the said market was vested in respondent No. 2, under section 16-A (3) of the Act. On the 1st July, 1956, a peremptory order was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Damoh, requiring the appellant to deliver possession of the market to respondent No. 2. As a result of this coercive order, the appellant gave possession of the market in suit to respondent No. 2 on 1st July 1956. In the present suit, the appellant's contention is that respondent No. 1 was not justified in compelling the appellant to deliver possession of the market by virtue of the order issued by the Sub- Divisional Officer, and that the two notifications issued on 8th June 1956 in pursuance of which the said order was purported to have been issued, were invalid. That is how the appellant asked for a decree for possesion of the property in suit and its management. It also claimed that the two respondents may be directed to render account of the mesne profits recovered by them from 1st July 1956 until the date of the decree. THIS suit was filed on the 1st April, 1957 in the Court of II Civil Judge, Damoh.

(2.) In its plaint, the appellant referred to the fact that before the impugned notifications were issued, the appellant had been consulted by respondent No. 1 and it had passed a resolution on the 1st December, 1955, giving approval to the subject of respondent No. l's proposal for regulating the Grain Market. The appellant alleged that this resolution was very vague and had been passed without giving due thought to the question posed by the Government's proposal. Besides, the appellant contended that even if the said resolution is said to be binding on the appellant, the title of the appellant in respect of the property in suit cannot be divested by the two impugned notifications, with the result that the appellant continued to be the owner of the said property and as such, was entitled to claim its possession and mesne profits during the period that it had been divested of it.

(3.) This decision gave rise to two cross Letters Patent appeals, one by the appellant and the other by respondent No. 1. The Division Bench of the High Court which heard these two appeals allowed the appeal preferred by respondent No. 1 and dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant. In the result, the suit instituted by the appellant has been wholly dismissed. THIS decision was pronounced on the 14th November, 1962. It is against this decision that the appellant has come to this Court by special leave.