DHANRAJ GOVINDRAMAJI VARMA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON questions of law being involved in both the writ applications, they were heard analogously and arc disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE factual matrix as depicted in M. P. No. 2216/84 is that the petitioner is in occupation of piece of land where his forefathers had put up structures for the residence of family. The structures have been standing on the said land for the last several years and the Indore Municipal Corporation, the respondent No. 2, has been realising house tax in respect of those structures. The petitioner by virtue of long possession has perfected his title by way of adverse possession. It is further stated in the petition that recently, Legislature of M. P. has enacted an Act namely M. P. Nagariya Kshetron Ke Bhoomi Hin Vyakti (Pattadhruti Adhikaron Ka Pradan Kiya Jana) Adhiniyam, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as Act') which was published in the M. P. Gazette Extraordinary on 17th April, 1984. Thereafter, Ordinance No. 7 of 1984 was promulgated on 1-5-1984 amending several provisions of Act. It is averred in the petition that the purpose of the Act is to confer lease hold rights on landless persons in respect of sites for dwelling houses in the urban areas in the State. The Act has been made applicable to all the District Headquarters and town having population more than one lakh according to the last census. Section 3-A of the Act provides that the Act would also apply in respect of the land vested in the Municipal Corporation if the Municipal Corporation by resolution decides to implement the provisions of the Act in respect of any land vested in it. To enable the Corporation to pass such a resolution the M. P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 was also amended by Ordinance No. 6/84 promulgated on 24-4-1984. Later on, to carry out the provisions of Sections 419 and 422 of the Municipal Corporation Act were also amended providing for supersession of the Corporation, in case of non-compliance with the directions issued by the State Govt. It is further averred in the petition that in exercise of powers Under Section 418-A the State Government issued a direction to the Indore Municipal Corporation on 24-4-1984 to pass a resolution in terms of Section 3-A of the Act. The Corporation accordingly passed a resolution resolving to confer benefits of the Act on those landless persons who were occupying Municipal land on 10-4-1984. The directions of the State Government and the resolution passed by the Indore Municipal Corporation have been brought on record as Annexures-B and C to the writ application. It is further alleged that the said resolution of the Indore Municipal Corporation was not in terms of Section 3-A of the Act. By virtue of said resolution, the Municipal Corporation granted 'pattas' of lease hold rights to the tenants residing in the superstructures constructed on Municipal land but belonging to other persons like the petitioner. Further case of the petitioner is that the settlement of land Under Section 3 of the Act has no relation to 'dwelling house' and the definition of 'landless persons' is not a rational one. There is also challenge to the definition of the term 'dwelling house'. There is also challenge to Section5 of the Act on the ground of arbitrariness and lack of legislative competency. Validity of provisions of Section 3 of the Act are also called in question on the ground that the cut off date stipulated therein has no rational basis and in fact has been brought in to favour certain persons and has created a classification which is impermissible in law. It is also pleaded in the petition that the combined effect of Section 3-A of the Act and Sections 418-A, 419 and 422 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 amounts to reposition of unbridled and uncanalised power with the State Government as it can compel the Municipal Corporation to pass a resolution which is violative of long cherished principles of local self government and in spirit runs contrary to various provisions of Municipal Corporation Act. With these averments the prayer has been made for declaring Section 3 of Act as ultra vires the Constitution of India being violative of the fundamental rights; the definitions of 'landlord', and 'dwelling house' being arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution; and the fixation of cut off date as 10-4-1984 being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. There is also prayer for declaring Sections 418-A, 419 and 422 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 as ultra vires the Constitution.

(3.) NO return has been filed by the respondents but Mr. R. S. Jha, Dy. Addl. Advocate General has entered appearance on behalf of the State and made his oral submissions on the ground that all the averments are in the arena of pure questions of law and he is entitled to combat them without traversing the facts. Mr. S. K. Jain learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the writ application has drawn our attention to Sections 2, 3 and 3-A of the Amending Act. They read as follows :