Back
1998 Supreme(MP) 565
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
DEEPAK VERMA
GULMOHAR GRIHA NIRMAN SAHAKARI SANSTHA SAMITI, INDORE - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - Respondents
W. P. 693 Of 1996
Decided On : 07/31/1998
A.M.MATHUR, B.A.CHITALE, K.G.Maheshwari, K.L.HARDIA, MINA CHAFEKAR, S.S.SAMWATSAR, Shekhar Bhargava, V.K.JAIN
The State Government cannot deprive a person of his property without authority of law, which means an Act of Parliament or of a State Legislature, a rule, or a statutory order having the force of law.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - COLONISERS/BUILDERS/DEVELOPERS - INFORMAL SECTOR - EXECUTIVE ORDER - AUTHORITY OF LAW - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ART. 300-A - MADHYA PRADESH NAGAR TATHA GRAM NIVESH ADHINIYAM, 1973 - MADHYA PRADESH BHUMI VIKAS RULES, 1984 - Whether petitioners, who are Colonisers/builders/developers, can be deprived of their land to the extent of 15% to be earmarked for Informal Sector, while carving out Colonies/plots by an executive order, passed by Respondents, without authority of law?
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, who are Colonisers/builders/developers, challenged the orders of the Respondents, directing them to reserve 15% of their land for the Informal Sector, while carving out Colonies/plots, on the ground that such orders were passed without authority of law and violated their fundamental rights under Art. 300-A of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Respondents did not have the authority to pass such orders, as there was no specific legislative competence or enactment passed by the State Government in this regard. The Court further held that the orders violated the petitioners' fundamental rights under Art. 300-A of the Constitution of India, which prohibits the deprivation of property without authority of law.
Issues: 1. Whether the Respondents had the authority to pass orders directing the petitioners to reserve 15% of their land for the Informal Sector? 2. Whether the orders violated the petitioners' fundamental rights under Art. 300-A of the Constitution of India?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Respondents did not have the authority to pass such orders, as there was no specific legislative competence or enactment passed by the State Government in this regard. The Court relied on the following provisions: a. Art. 300-A of the Constitution of India, which prohibits the deprivation of property without authority of law. b. Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, which does not provide any power to the Respondents to impose such a condition. c. Madhya Pradesh Bhumi Vikas Rules, 1984, which also do not require the petitioners to carve-out or earmark 15% of the total land for Informal Sector. 2. The Court held that the orders violated the petitioners' fundamental rights under Art. 300-A of the Constitution of India, which prohibits the deprivation of property without authority of law.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned orders, holding that they were passed without authority of law and violated the petitioners' fundamental rights under Art. 300-A of the Constitution of India.
( 1 ) THIS order shall also govern disposal of W. P. No. 494/96 (Shrinath Griha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. State of M. P.); W. P. No. 612/96 (Shri Laxmi Co-operative Housing Societylimited Indore v. State of M. P.); W. P. No. 679/1996 (Akash Griha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Indore v. State of M. P.); W. P. No. 680/1996 (Madhuri Griha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Indore v. State of M. P.); W. P. No. 682/1996 (Janta Griha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Indore v. State of M. P.); W. P. No. 683/1996 (Brijeswari Apartments Co-operative Housing Societylimited Indore v. State of M. P.); W. P. No. 684/ 1996 (Ma Saraswati Griha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Indore v. State of M. P.); W. P. No. 685/1996 (Shri Deo Griha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Indore v. State of M. P.); W. P. No. 686/1996 (Sukliya Griha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Indore v. State of M. P.); W. P. No. 687/ 1996 (Gajanand Griha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Indore v. State of M. P.); W. P. No. 688/1996 (Brijeshwari Apartment Co-operative Housing Societylimited, Indore v. State of M. P.); W. P. No. 709/1996 (Shantilal Jain v. State of M. P.); W. P. No. 710/1996 (Rakhi Griha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Indore v. State of M. P.); W. P. No. 711/1996 (R. R. and Company Indore v. State of M. P.); W. P. No. 713/1996 (Jagrati Griha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Indore v. State of M. P.); W. P. No. 714/1996 (Jagrati Griha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Indore v. State of M. P.); W. P. No. 7 28/1996 (Sheetal Nagar Griha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Indore v. State of M. P.); W. P. No. 785/1996 (Rooprekha Griha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Indore v. State of M. P.); W. P. No. 819/1996 (Dilipsingh and one another v. State of M. P.); W. P. No. 944/1996 (Maheshkumar Maheshwari v. State of M. P.); W. P. No. 951/1996 (Radheshyam Maheshwari and one another v. State of M. P.); W. P. No. 1042/1996 (Navlakha Sramik Avas Griha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Indore v. State of M. P.); W. P. No. 1043/1996 (Haryana Nagar Griha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Indore v. State of M. P.); W. P. No. 1045/1996 (Haryana Nagar Griha Nirman Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Indore v. State of M. P.); W. P. No. 1301/1997 Nutun Griha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Indore v. State of M. P.); W. P. No. 1601/1996 (Shri Sainath Co-operative Housing Society Maryadit, Indore v. State of M. P.); W. P. No. 1654/1997 Arovil Housing Co-operative Societylimited Ujjain v. State of M. P.); W. P: No. 1655/1997 (Arovil Housing Co-operative Societylimited Ujjain v. State of M. P.); W. P. 272/1997 (Smt. Pramilabai Parsai v. State of M. P.); W. P. No. 508/1997 (Smt. Leelabai v. State of M. P.); W. P. No. 1809/1997 (Shikhar Griha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Indore v. State of M. P.); as common questions of law and fact are involved in all these petitions.
( 2 ) THE question that arises for consideration of this Court, as formulated after hearing learned counsel for parties, is mentioned hereinbelow;whether petitioners, who are Colonisers/builders/developers, can be deprived of their land to the extent of 15% to be earmarked for Informal Sector, while carving out Colonies/plots by an executive order, passed by Respondents, without authority of law?
( 3 ) FACTS as unveiled, after hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, as depicted in W. P. No. 693/1996 (Gulmohar Griha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Samiti v. State of M. P.) are as under; (I) Petitioner is a Housing Society, duly registered under the provisions of M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. It is basically engaged in carving out plots, then, allotting the same to its members. (II) Petitioner purchased 8. 69 acres of land in village Piplyahana, Indore, for achieving the said object. On account of aims and objects of the said society, it was exempted from operation of S. 20 (1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Petitioner also applied for grant of
