STATE OF M P Vs. NILENDRA PRATAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUSTAINABILITY of the composite order dated 5.8.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2496/2002 and other connected matters (2002 RN 361) is called in question in this batch of appeals in invocation of jurisdiction of this Court under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Taking comprehensive range of facts into consideration we would compendiously set out the essential physiognomy that has been catalytic catapult to spiral the controversy to this Court.

(2.) AS is discernible from the order, the private respondents invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for quashment of the circular dated 2.3.2002 issued by the State Government containing certain instructions. That apart, the assail was made to the action of the State Government whereby the allotment of pasture, grass, bir, fodder reserve land commonly known as 'Charnoi' land was made on the argumentation that the lands reserved under section 237 (1) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') could not have been diverted in exercise of power under section 237 (3) and the same could not have been exclusively demarcated for distribution amongst the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes persons. It was pleaded that the lands reserved for public purpose cannot be allotted to private individuals for private purpose. It was also setforth that the reduction of 'Gochar' land from 5% to 2% was against the scheme of the Code. In addition to the aforesaid it was contended before the learned Single Judge that the action of the Government in directing allotment to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes persons is illegal and contrary to law and violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. The circular was attacked on the ground that the same travels beyond the envisagement and stipulation of the Code which is impermissible in law.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the writ petitioners and the learned counsel for the State has come to hold that the executive instructions issued on various dates, eventually attaining coricritized culminative shape, vide circular dated 2.3.2002, is not sustainable as there has been no amendment in respect of certain provisions of the Code as a consequence of which the amendment to section 237 (3) of the Code is of no avail. To arrive at the said conclusion the learned Single Judge has relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in the case of Amar Singh v. Raghuvir Singh and others, 1980 RN 6. The learned Single Judge has further held that vires of section 237 is not necessary to be challenged inasmuch as the executive instructions have been issued in derogation of the provisions of sections 234 to 237 of the Code. It has further been held by him that the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Amar Singh (supra) thwarts the attempt to convert other land reserved under section 237 (1) of the Code. Emphasis has been laid on environment, conversion, growth of cattle, need of population and ecological balance.