KHURSHIDBAI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE material facts giving rise to this petition, briefly, are as follows :

(3.) SHRI Chaphekar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that before passing an order under Section 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.