BABOOLAL SHARDA Vs. SAVITRIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution'). The appellants had challenged the appellate order passed by the Collector in exercise of appellate powers conferred by the Madhya Pradesh Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 ( in short the '1976 Adhiniyam'). The original order was passed by the SDO on 20.11.1990. The complaint was filed by respondent No. 1 stating that under Section 5 of the Adhiniyam, the land purchased by the appellants needs to be restored to her as transfer to appellants was in violation of the stipulations contained in the Adhiniyam. It was alleged that Ram Prasad Sharda, father of the appellant No. 1 had grabbed the land and after his death the land was in possession of his successor-the appellant No.1. The appellants took the stand that the purchases in question were in court auctions and therefore the Adhiniyam has no application. The SDO did not find any substance in it. According to him, Section 15 of the Adhiniyam clearly applied to the facts of the case. It was also held that Section 6 is also relevant. The SDO did not accept the stand that the purchase being under court auctions, the Adhiniyam had no application holding that under the definition of "lender of money" and "prohibited transaction of loan" the appellants were required to restore the possession of the land to the applicant-respondent No.1. Appeal filed before the Collector as noted above did not bring any relief.

(2.) Before the High Court the stands taken before the SDO and the Collector were reiterated. But the High Court had abruptly concluded that the appellate order clearly established that the Act was applicable. It did not examine the various points raised.

(3.) It may be noted at this juncture that there was a period of limitation fixed for filing the claim after enactment of the Adhiniyam. Appellants' specific stand was that the application was filed much beyond the prescribed time. The High Court merely noted that the time for filing the claims was extended. It did not record any positive finding that the application was filed within the extended time.