VIKAS GUPTA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in this writ petition has prayed for writ of certiorari to quash the orders (Annexures-D, I, J, K and L) and from prohibiting the respondents from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of petitioners or acquiring the same.

(2.) IT is averred in the petition that the petitioners are father and son and petitioner No. 2 carried on business of refractories. Petitioner No. 1 Vikas Gupta purchased a piece of land, area 1. 307 hectares out of Khasra No. 528, area 1. 388 hectares situate in Mouza Jhinjhari, Tehsil Murwara, District Jabalpur, vide registered sale-deed (Annexure-A), dated 27-6-80 for a consideration of Rs. 11,500/- from Punaua and others, who delivered possession of the said land to him. He is in peaceful possession of the said land since then in Bhumiswami rights. Mutation was made in Khasra (Annexure B ).

(3.) IT is further averred that the State Government allotted an area of 8 acres for building a Sub-Jail in Mouza Jhinjhari, over survey No. 812, which is situate at a distance of about 200 meters off the land of petitioner No. 1. Lay out plan of Sub-Jail was prepared and existence of private land was clearly shown. Petitioner No. 1 started building activity by raising boundary walls all around the area. Notice Annexure-D, dated 15-2-1989 was received from Additional Collector, Katni to stop the construction on the ground that they had encroached over survey No. 812, area 6. 25 acres, which was the land allotted for the construction of Sub-Jail, and since the land of petitioners fell within the circle of 30 meters from the said Sub-Jail, it lantamounts to encroachment and no construction could be carried out by them. The petitioners got the area demarcated and it was found that the construction carried out by them was within the area which belonged to them, and was at a distance more than 30 meters from the premises of the Sub-Jail. Report (Annexure-E) was submitted. It was found that the construction is over the area which belongs to the petitioners and was at a distance of more than 30 meters from the premises of Sub-Jail. Superintendent, Central Jail wrote a letter on 26-12-1990 to the Additional Collector, Katni to the effect that the construction activity carried out by petitioner be directed to be stopped and some other land be allotted to them in lieu of their existing land. It is further averred that the Inspector General of Prisons addressed a letter (Annexure F), dated 5-12-1990 to the Additional Collector, Katni, for acquisition of Khasra Nos. 806, 807, 810 and 811, in area 3. 82 acres. It is further averred that on the demarcation being made, it was found that the boundary of petitioners' land was at a distance off 66 ft. from the jail premises towards north and south and 50 ft. east-west from the said jail premises. Petitioners submit that the land is situated at a proper distance from jail premises. Hence, no restriction of any kind on construction activity could be imposed. Petitioners have incurred a huge expenditure for development of the said land and in raising a boundary wall and other structure thereon. Respondents want to acquire the land of the petitioners, which is unjustified. A telegraphic message (Annexure-G), dated 4-1-1991 was sent by Inspector General of Prisons, whereby the petitioner was directed to stop construction activity. The Additional Collector as per order (Annexure-I), dated 10-1-1991 stopped the work. Nazul Officer also issued a similar direction as per order (Annexure-J), dated 21-1-1991. Patwari report (Annexure-L), dated 31-1-1991 is also filed by the petitioner. It is averred that the land is situated adjoining to the National Highway and is a valuable piece of land. Rule 30 of the M. P. Prison Rules, 1968 has also been relied upon. There still lies about 7 acres of vacant land all around the jail.