KHURSHIDBAI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The material facts giving rise to this petition, briefly, are as follows The open land appurtenant to Bungalow No. 58 situated in Neemuch Cantonment was divided into plots by petitioner No. 1, the owner thereof, after obtaining sanction in that behalf from the Neemuch Municipal Council in the year 1969. Thereafter, petitioner No. 1 sold some plots and entered into agreements with petitioners Nos. 2 to 15 for sale of the other plots but before sale deeds could be executed and registered, the Madhya Pradesh Vinirdist Bhrast Acharan Niwaran Adhiniyam, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") came into force. On 24-2-85, the Collector District Mandsaur, published a notice in a daily newspaper stating that as petitioner No. 1 had violated the provisions of S.24(a) of the Act, the proposed sale of plots in favour of petitioners Nos. 2 to 15 was void under S.31 (1) of the Act. The petitioners were called upon to show cause why the management of the land in question be not taken up by the Collector. Petitioner No. 1 filed reply showing cause but the Collector, by his order dated 2-9-85, took over the management of the land under the provisions of S.31(1)(b) of the Act by holding that sales in favour of petitioners Nos. 2 to 15 were void under S.31(1) of the Ad. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioners have filed this petition.

(3.) Shri Chaphekar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that before passing an order under S.31(1) of the Act and proceeding to take over the management of the land, the Collector should have found that in respect of the land in question, petitioner No. 1 was guilty of illegal diversion or illegal colonisation; that no such finding could be given because at the time when the land was colonised by petitioner No. 1, all that was necessary was to obtain sanction of the Neemuch Municipal Council and that such sanction having been obtained, it could not be held that petitioner No. 1 was guilty of illegal colonisation. The learned Counsel, therefore, contended that the impugned order passed by the Collector deserved to be quashed. In reply, Shri Joshi, the learned Government Advocate, contended that petitioner No. 1 did not produce any material before the Collector to prove that she was not guilty of illegal colonisation; that petitioner No. 1 had herself applied for a licence of colonisation from the Collector, which was refused and that the Collector, therefore, was justified in passing the impugned order.