Back
1995 JLJ 552
A.K. Mathur and P.P. Naolekar, JJ.
Pushpak Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti v. State of M.P.
M.P. No. 4311 of 1991; Decided on 12.4.1994.
(2) Constitution of India -- Art. 252 -- Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 -- S. 38 -- Vinirdishta Bhrashta Acharan Nivaran Adhiniyam, 1982 (M.P.) -- Chap. VIII, Ss. 24 to 30 -- purposes of both the Acts are not conflicting -- both the Acts advance public good -- Art. 252 has not been violated by Act of 1982.
(3) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 -- S. 35 Constitution of India -- Art. 252 -- Vinirdishta Bhrashta Acharan Nivaran Adhiniyam, 1982 (M.P.) -- Chap. VIII Ss. 24 to 30 -- purposes of both the Acts are not conflicting -- both the Acts advance public good -- Art. 252 has not been violated by Act of 1982.
(4) Vinirdishta Bhrashta Acharan Nivaran Adhiniyam, 1982 (M.P.) -- Chap. VIII, Ss. 24 to 30 -- Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 -- S. 38 -- Constitution of India Art. 252 -- purposes of both the Acts are not conflicting -- both the Acts advance public good -- Art. 262 has not been violated by Act of 1982.
The purposes of both these Acts do not run counter to each other rather the Act 1982 is a complementary provision advancing the cause of Act 1976. The section 38 of Act, 1976, only lays down punishment for not filing the returns, but there is no punishment provided for illegal colonization or conversion. It is only this Act of 1982 which punishes a person who has illegally colonized or diverted the land for colonization. Thus, the area of operation of both these Acts does not in any manner conflict to each other. Rather by reading both these Acts together, it will advance the cause of common man and conducive to the public good. Since we have found that both the Acts are not conflicting with each other, therefore, there is no violation of Article 252 of the Constitution of India. AIR 1962 SC 594 distinguished. [Para 13
(5) Vinirdishta Bhrashta Acharan Nivaran (Registration and Development of Colonies) Rules, 1982 (M.P.) -- Rr. 13 to 20 -- land of illegal colonization forfeited after decision of the criminal Court -- no question of appeal against order of Collector arises -- Rules are valid. [Para 15
(6) Vinirdishta Bhrashta Acharan Nivaran Adhiniyam, 1982 (M.P.) -- S. 39 -- directions to police to investigate offences under the Act -- can only be given by the Commissioner of the Division -- Collector has no jurisdiction or authority to give such directions. [Para 16
¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 252 && fdlh jkT; }kjk ;Fkk ladfYir jkT; fo"k; ij laln }kjk vf/kfu;fefr ikfjr && ckn esa ,slh vf/kfu;fefr dk ladYi }kjk viuk;k tkuk ogh ckr gS] mlls varj ugha iM+rkA ¿ iSjk 12
¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 252 && uxj Hkwfe ¼vf/kdre lhek vkSj fofu;eu½ vf/kfu;e] 1976 && /kkjk 38 && fofufnZ"V Hkz"V vkpj.k fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1982 ¼e-iz-½ && v/;k; 8] /kkjk 24 ls 30 && nksuksa vf/kfu;eksa ds mís‘; fojks/kh ugha gSa && nskuksa vf/kfu;eksa }kjk yksd HkykbZ vxzlj dh xbZ gS && vuq- 252 dk lu~ 1982 ds vf/kfu;e }kjk vfrØe.k ugha gqvk gSA
¼3½ uxj Hkwfe ¼vf/kdre lhek vkSj fofu;eu½ vf/kfu;e] 1976 && /kkjk 38 && Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 252 && fofufnZ"V Hkz"V vkpj.k fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1982 ¼e-iz-½ && v/;k; 8] /kkjk 24 ls 30 && nksuksa vf/kfu;eksa ds mís‘;ksa fojks/kh ugha gSa && nksuksa vf/kfu;eksa }kjk yksd HkykbZ vxzlj dh xbZ gS && vuq- 252 dk lu~ 1982 ds vf/kfu;e }kjk vfrØe.k ugha gqvk gSA
¼4½ fofufnZ"V Hkz"V vkpj.k fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1982 ¼e-iz-½ && v/;k; 8] /kkjk 24 ls 30 && uxj Hkwfe ¼vf/kdre lhek vkSj fofu;eu½ vf/kfu;e] 1976 && /kkjk 38 && Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 252 && nksuksa vf/kfu;eksa ds mís‘; fojks/kh ugha gSa && nksuksa vf/kfu;eksa }kjk yksd HkykbZ vxzlj dh xbZ gS && vuq- 252 dk lu~ 1982 ds vf/kfu;e }kjk vfrØe.k ugha gqvk gSA
bu nksuksa vf/kfu;eksa ds mís‘; ,d&nwljs ds fojksk esa ugha gSa] vfiq] lu~ 1982 dk vf/kfu;e ,slk iwjd mica/k gS ftlls lu~ 1976 ds vf/kfu;e dk gsrqd vxzlj gksrk gSa vf/kfu;e] 1976 dh /kkjk 38 esa fooj.kh Qkby u djus ds fy, gh naM vf/kdfFkr gS] voS/k mifuos‘ku vFkok laifjorZu ds fy, naM micaf/kr ugha gSA lu~ 1982 ds bl vf/kfu;e }kjk gh ,sls O;fDr dks nafMr fd;k tk ldrk gS ftlus voS/k :i ls mifuos‘ku fd;k gS vFkok mifuos‘ku ds fy, Hkwfe dk O;iorZu fd;k gSa bl izdkj] bu nksuksa vf/kfu;eksa ds izorzu ds {ks= esa fdlh jhfr esa ,d&nwljs ls fojksk ugha gSA vfirq] bu nksuksa vf/kfu;eksa dk lgiBu lkekU; O;fDr dk fgr vxzlj djsxk rFkk yksd dY;k.k dk lk/kd gksxkA pwfd gekjk fu"d"kZ gS fd nksuksa vf/kfu;e ,d&nwljs ds fojks/k esa ugha gSa] vr%] Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 252 dk vfrØe.k ugha gksrkA , vkb vkj 1962 ,l lh 594 izHksfnrA ¿ iSjk 13
¼5½ fofufnZ"V Hkz"V vkpj.k fuokj.k ¼dkyksfu;ksa dk jftLVªdj.k rFkk fodkl½ fu;e] 1982 ¼e-iz-½ && fu- 13 ls 20 && naM U;k;ky; ds fofu‘p; ds i‘pkr~ voS/k mifuos‘ku dh Hkwfe leiâr && dysDVj ds vkns‘k ds fo:) vihy dk iz‘u mn~Hkwr ugha gksrk && fu;e fof/kekU; gSA ¿ iSjk 15
¼6½ fofufnZ"V Hkz"V vkpj.k fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1982 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 39 && vf/kfu;e ds v/khu vijk/kksa dk vUos"k.k djus ds iqfyl dks funs‘k && laHkkx ds vk;qDr }kjk gh fn, tk ldrs gSa && dysDVj dks ,sls funs‘k nsus dh vf/kdkfjrk vFkok izkf/kdkj ugha gSA ¿ iSjk 16
A.K. Mathur, J. --1. All these petitions viz. M.P. No. 1466/90 (Nandkishore Sharma v. R.D. Richariya & others); M.P. No. 2220/91 (R.R. Dubey v. State of M.P. & others); M.P. No. 2409/91 (Jai Prakash Sahakari Griha Nirman Samiti v. State of M.P. & others); Misc. Petition No. 2682/91 (Janta Griha Nirman Sahkari Samiti v. State of M.P. & others); Misc. Petition No. 2700/91 (Jagdish Prasad Sahu v. State of M.P. and others); Misc. Petition No. 3319/91 (Vidyug Shramik Griha Nirman Sahkari Samiti v. State of M.P. and others); M.P. No. 3337/91 (Mahakoshal Griha Nirman Sahkari Samiti v. State & others); M.P. No. 4554/91 (Amrapali Griha Nirman Sahkari Samiti v. State of M.P. & others); M.P. 2272/93 (Vasundhara Griha Nirman Sahkari Samiti v. State of M.P. & others); M.P. 3878/93 (Army Personnel Resettlements v. State & others); M.P. No. 4688/93 (Mansoor Ahmad v. State of M.P. & others); and M.P. No. 3868/87 (Purushottamdas Tandan & others v. State of M.P. & others), 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 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 & 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 Regulation 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 licences 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 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. Vinirdishta Bhrashta Acharan Nivaran (Registration & Development of Colonies) Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as Rules). It is submitted that the Parliament enacted a law known as Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulations) Act 33, 1976 (hereinafter referred to Act of 1976) and it is alleged that this Act was enacted to put ceiling on land in urban agglomeration. It is contained that in pursuance of Clause (1) of Article 252 of the Constitution of India, eleven Houses of legislature, namely, State of Andhra Pradesh, State of Gujrat, State of Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Orrisa, 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 t
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
