SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(MP) 14

R.S. Garg, J.
Indu Gupta
vs
State Of M.P. And Ors.
Decided On : 14 January, 1997

A Collector's delegation of powers to a Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 17 of the M.P. Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974 does not authorize the Sub-Divisional Officer to exercise powers that the Collector himself does not possess.

Headnote:

M.P. LOK PARISAR (BEDAKHALI) ADHINIYAM, 1974 - SECTION 3, 17 - APPOINTMENT OF COMPETENT AUTHORITY - DELEGATION OF POWERS - COLLECTOR'S POWER TO APPOINT COMPETENT AUTHORITY - REQUIREMENT OF NOTIFICATION - JURISDICTION OF SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER - ILLEGAL ORDER - QUASHING.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Commissioner directing his eviction under the M.P. Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974, on the ground that the Sub-Divisional Officer lacked jurisdiction to act as a competent authority.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Sub-Divisional Officer lacked jurisdiction to act as a competent authority because the Collector had not issued a notification in the official gazette appointing him as such, as required by Section 3 of the Act. The court also held that the Collector's delegation of powers to the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 17 of the Act did not authorize the Sub-Divisional Officer to exercise powers that the Collector himself did not possess.

Issues: Whether the Sub-Divisional Officer had jurisdiction to act as a competent authority under the M.P. Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Sub-Divisional Officer lacked jurisdiction because the Collector had not issued a notification in the official gazette appointing him as a competent authority, as required by Section 3 of the Act. The court also held that the Collector's delegation of powers to the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 17 of the Act did not authorize the Sub-Divisional Officer to exercise powers that the Collector himself did not possess.

Final Decision: The court quashed the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Commissioner and directed the refund of the security amount deposited by the petitioner.

ORDER

R.S. Garg, J.

1. By this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the orders dated 11-5-1984, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in case No. 194-B/121/82-83 directing eviction of the petitioner under the provisions of M.P. Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974 and the appellate order passed by Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur in appeal case No. 109-B/121/83-84, dated 20-5-1985.

2. The brief facts leading to the petition are that the respondent No. 2 Sub-Divisional Officer after receipt of a letter from the Collector, Rajnandgaon registered the proceedings under the provisions of M.P. Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974 (Act hereinafter) on the premises that the property belonged to the State Government and as the same was required for the activities of the school, the occupant (since deceased, represented by the legal representative is liable to be evicted. Apart from various objections, the occupant had submitted before the S.D.O. that it had no jurisdiction to act as a competent authority and should not pass an order for eviction. The objection was overruled by the competent authority holding that as the matter has been referred to him by the Collector and as under the distribution memo he was allotted the work under the Act, he was entitled to exercise the powers. The objections did not find any favour in the appeal even.

3. Shri Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for appointment of a competent authority the State must issue a notification in the official gazette and appoint such person being an officer not below the rank of Assistant Collector or Deputy Collector as competent authority for the purposes of the Act and define the local limits within which or the categories of public premises in respect of which the competent authority shall exercise the powers conferred, and perform the duties imposed on competent authority by or under the Act.

4. Section 17 of the Act authorises the State Government to delegate the powers. According to Section 17, the State Government may by notification in the official gazette, direct that any power exercisable by it under the Act shall subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the notification being exercisable also by an officer of the State Government. Exercising the powers Under Section 17, the State Government has issued notification No. F-13-1-75-II-A(3), dated 5th February, 1975, published in M.P. Rajpatra, Part I, dated 16-4-1976 (page 694). According to the notification, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 17 of the Act the State Government directed that the powers exercisable by it Under Section 3 of the Act shall also be exercisable by all Collectors within their respective jurisdictions. According to Section 3, as observed above, the State by notification in the official gazette may appoint certain person as competent authority for the purposes of the Act. The powers which vested in the Government Under Section 3, by virtue of the notification can also be exercised by the Collectors within their respective jurisdiction. The words "State Government may, by notification in the official gazette" after the notification may now be read because of the delegation of the powers in favour of the Collectors, as "the Collector may, by notification in the official gazette_____________", if the State was required to issue a notification in the official gazette for appointment of certain person/persons as competent authority for the purpose of the Act and define the local limits within which or the categories of public premises in respect of which the competent authority should exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on competent authority by or under the Act, then any person in whose favour the powers have been delegated by the State Government, as a delegatee of the powers cannot exercise the powers which did not vest in the person who delegated the powers. If the


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top