Back
1994 Supreme(MP) 340
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
A. K. MATHUR, P. P. NAOLEKAR
PUSHPAK GRAH NIRMAN SAHAKARI SAMITI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M.P - Respondents
MISC. PETN. 4311 Of 1991
Decided On : 04/12/1994
D.K.DIXIT, S.L.SAXENA
The Madhya Pradesh Vinirdishta Bhrashta Acharan Nivaran Adhiniyam, 1982 is not ultra vires of the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and Article 252 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
MADHYA PRADESH VINIRDISHTA BHRASHATA ACHARAN NIVARAN ADHINIYAM, 1982 - VALIDITY - URBAN LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT, 1976 - ARTICLE 252 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - RULES FRAMED UNDER THE ACT - VALIDITY - APPEAL - PROVISION - COLLECTOR'S DIRECTION TO POLICE FOR INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the validity of the Madhya Pradesh Vinirdishta Bhrashta Acharan Nivaran Vidheyak, 1982 and the rules framed thereunder. They also prayed that all the proceedings taken in pursuance of that Act may be quashed including the first information report, investigation and prosecution launched against them.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Act of 1982 is not ultra vires of the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act nor under Article 252 of the Constitution of India. However, the Court held that wherever any Collector has issued a direction for launching prosecution, that action is without jurisdiction and same is set aside.
Issues: 1. Whether the Madhya Pradesh Vinirdishta Bhrashta Acharan Nivaran Adhiniyam, 1982 is ultra vires of the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and Article 252 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the rules framed under the Act are valid? 3. Whether the Collector's direction to police for investigation and prosecution is valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that there is no conflict between the Act of 1976 and the Act of 1982 and the Act of 1982 does not run counter to the provisions of Act 1976 and there is no violation of Article 252 of the Constitution of India. The Court observed that the purpose of Act 1976 was to put a ceiling on the urban land so that the area in excess of ceiling could be acquired by the State for distribution to the other persons, while the Act of 1982 only provides to prosecute the persons who are illegal colonizer or illegal diversion of land without obtaining the necessary permission under the law bearing on subject. 2. The Court held that the rules are not illegal for the reasons that no provision of appeal has been provided under the Rules for the management of land by the Collector, as the management of the plot will only come under the management of the Collector once the Criminal Court decides the matter. 3. The Court held that wherever Collector has given a direction to the Police for registering the case for investigating and launching the prosecution then such act by the Collector shall be deemed to be illegal and unauthorised.
Final Decision: All the writ petitions were disposed of accordingly. The amount of security deposited, if any, was ordered to be refunded to the petitioners.
( 1 ) ALL these petitions viz. M. P. No. 1466/90 (Nandkishore Sharma v. R. D. Richariya); M. P. No. 2220/91 (R. R. Dubdy v. State of M. P.); M. P. No. 2409/91 (Jai Prakash Sahakari Griha Nirman Samiti v. State of M. P.); Misc. Petition No. 2682/91 (Janta Griha Nirman Sahkari Samiti v. State of M. P.); Misc. Petition No. 2700/91 (Jagdish Prasad Sahu v. State of M. P.); Misc. Petition No. 3319/91 (Vidyug Shramik Griha Nirman Sahkari Samiti v. State of M. P.); M. P. No. 3337 /91 (Mahakoshal Griha Nirman Sahkari Samiti v. State); M. P. No. 4554/91 (Amrapali Griha Nirman Sahkari Samiti v. State of M. P.); M. P. 2272/93 (Vasundhara Griha Nirman Sahkarisamiti v. Siate of M. P.); M. P. 3878/93 (Army Personal Resettlements v. State; M. P. No. 4688/ 93 (Mansoor Ahmad v. State of M. P.) and M. P. No. 3068/87 (Purushottamdas Tandan v. State of M. P.), involved a common question of law and, therefore, they are disposed of by a common order. For convenient disposal of all these petitions, facts given in the case of Pushpak Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti are taken into consideration.
( 2 ) THE petitioners by this petition have challenged the validity of the Madhya Pradesh Vinirdishta Bhrashta Acharan Nivaran Vidheyak, 1982 and the rules framed thereunder and have also prayed that all the proceedings taken in pursuance of that Act may be quashed including the first information report, investigation and prosecution launched against the petitioners.
( 3 ) THE petitioner No. 1 is a Society registered under Section 9 of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and petitioner No. 2 is its President. The petitioners purchased certain pieces of land by a registered sale deeds within the Urban Agglomeration. These lands have been diverted and necessary certificates of diversion have been obtained from the Revenue Authorities, i. e. Jabalpur Development Authority; Town and Country Planning Authority and obtained a sanction for construction of the houses thereof. It is also submitted that a Competent Authority granted exemption under sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 1976 Act' ). It is alleged that Scheme No. 15 of the village Bethla was to be published under sub-section (4) of Section 50 of the M. P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973. It is alleged that there was no necessity to obtain licenses from the Collector, Jabalpur, before establishment of the colony. However, out of abundant caution, licences were obtained from the Collector for establishment of colony.
( 4 ) THE respondent No. 2 on 14/11/1991 issued notices to the petitioners asking them that why the prosecution may not be launched against them under the provisions of M. P. Vinirdishta Bhrashta Acharan Nivaran Adhiniyam, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "act 1982" ). The petitioners submitted their reply, and they have filed this petition challenging the validity of Act No. 36 of 1982.
( 5 ) THE aforesaid Act came into force with effect from 30-10-1982. The State Government framed Rules under this Act known as M. P. Vinirdhista Bhrashta Acharan Nivaran Adhiniyam (Registration and Development of Colonies) Rules (hereinafter referred to as Rules ). It is submitted that the Parliament enacted a law known as Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act 33 of 1976 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1976) and it is alleged that this Act was enacted to put ceiling on land in urban agglomeration. It is contended that in pursuance of Clause (I) of Article 252 of the Constitution of India, eleven Houses of Legislature, namely, State of Andhra Pradesh, State of Gujarat, States of Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Orissa, Punjab, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal resolved that the Parliament may make law on Urban Land Ceiling. Therefore, Parliament enacted this Act, though it was within competence of State Legislature to make the law on this subject. This Act came into force w. e. f. 17-
