(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the appellants against the State of Madhya Pradesh and the Municipal Corporation Shivpuri, for setting aside an order passed by the Collector of Shivpuri, under section 203 of the Municipal Act. The circumstances in which the order was passed were these. The plaintiffs applied on May 4, 1953, to the Municipal Committee for sale of a piece of a land 95 ¾' X 6'. The Municipal Committee by its resolution dated August 26, 1953, decided to sell the land to the plaintiffs at Rs. 3 per sqr. yard. By another resolution dated August 2, 1954, the Municipal Committee decided to execute the deed of sale and to deliver possess on to the plaintiffs. On August 7, 1954, the plaintiffs deposited Rs. 193/4/ and applied that a sale deed may be executed and possession may be delivered. However, before the sale deed could be executed and possession could be given, on October 4, 1954, the Inspector General of Municipalities wrote to the Municipal Committee to reconsider its resolution. On November 15, 1954, the Municipal Committee again reiterated its resolution. On November 16, 1954, an application was made by some persons from the public to the Collector. On November 30, 1954, the Collector stayed the execution of the resolution passed by the Municipal Committee and referred the matter to the Inspector General of Municipalities. On May 19, 1955, the Collector confirmed the stay order passed on November 13, 1954.
(2.) THIS suit was instituted challenging the validity of the orders passed by the Collector on November 30, 1954, and May 19, 1955, and praying that they be quashed.
(3.) IN this second appeal Shri Bhagwandas Gupta, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, raises only one point before me. It is strenuously maintained that the orders of the Collector do not fall within the purview of section 203 of the Municipal Act Findings of fact have not been; and could not be assailed before me in second appeal. Indeed, I am not called upon to express any opinion on the propriety of the orders which were passed by the Collector, To put it differently, it is not for me to decide whether in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the collector should or should not also have intervened. All that this Court is asked to examine is whether the Collector exceeded his powers under section 203 of the Municipal Act when he suspended the execution of the resolution passed by the Municipal Committee. My answer is in the negative. Section 203 (1) reads thus: