Back
2012 Supreme(MP) 564
¼mPpre U;k;ky;½ (SUPREME COURT)
U;k- ih-lkFkkf’koe rFkk U;k- jatu xksxksbZ
P. Sathasivam and Ranjan Gogoi, JJ.
Xokfy;j ‘kqxj da- fyfe- rFkk ,d vU; fo- vfuy xqIrk rFkk vU;
Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd. and another v. Anil Gupta and others
flfoy vihy Øekad 7760 lu~ 2012 ¼¼,l ,y ih ¼flfoy½ Ø- 1861 lu~ 2008 ls mRiUu½ % mPp U;k;ky; e/; izns’k] [kaM ihB Xokfy;j }kjk fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 1773 lu~ 2006 ¼ih-vkb-,y-½ esa ikfjr vkns’k fnukad 1-12-2007 ds fo#)( fu.khZr fnukad 2-11-2012
¼2008 jk fu 143 esa laizdkf’kr½A
Civil Appeal No.7760 of 2012 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 1861 of 2008); against order dated 1.12.2007 of High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Writ Petition No.1773 of 2006 (PIL)(Published in 2008 RN 143);
Decided on 2.11.2012
jathr dqekj] /kzqo esgrk lfgr vHk; ,- tSuk] lkFkZd esgjks=k rFkk chuk xqIrk vihykFkhZx.k dh vksj ls( ch-,l- ckafB;k] iz.kc dqekj eqfYyd rFkk vk’kh”k jk.kk izR;FkhZ Ø- 3 ls 12 dh vksj lsA
Ranjit Kumar, Dhruv Mehta with Abhay A. Jena, Sarthak Mehrotra and Bina Gupta for appellants; B.S. Banthia, Pranab Kumar Mullick and Ashish Rana for respondent No. 3 to 12.
Headnote:¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq- 136 & dh O;kfIr & dkuwuh vf/kfu;fefr ds izHkko ds laca/k esa u;k vfHkopu & fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¼iSjk 12
¼2½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-Á-½ & /kkjk 158¼1½¼[k½ & e-Hkk- Hkw& vkxe rFkk d`“kdkf/kdkj fo/kku] 1950 & /kkjk 54¼lkr½ rFkk 101 & e-Hkk- tehankjh lekfIr fo/kku] 1951 & /kkjk 39 & o”kZ 1941 esa ‘kDdj dkj[kkuk LFkkfir djus ds fy, Hkwfe;ksa ds iÍs iznku fd, x, & iV~Vsnkj dk uke xSj ekS:lh ds :i esa vfHkfyf[kr & ckn esa mldk uke iDdk d`“kd ds :i esa vfHkfyf[kr & lafgrk ds izorZu ij mldk uke HkwfeLokeh ds :i esa vfHkfyf[kr & HkwfeLokeh dh gSfLk;r Lohdkj djus ds laca/k esa vfHkys[k ij izfrdwy lkexzh ds vHkko esa & ;g le>k tk,xk fd tehankjh lekfIr fOk/kku dh /kkjk 39 ds lkFk ifBr d`”kdkf/kdkj fo/kku dh /kkjk 101 ds v/khu uohu iV~Vk iznku fd;k x;k gSA ¼iSjk 12
¼3½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-Á-½ & /kkjk 158 rFkk 165 ¼1½ & e-Hkk- Hkw& vkxe rFkk —“kdkf/kdkj fo/kku] 1950 & /kkjk 101 &e-Hkk- tehankjh lekfIr fo/kku] 1951 & /kkjk 39 & o”kZ 1940&41 esa tehankj }kjk iV~Vk iznku fd;k x;k & fof/k ds izHkko ls iV~Vsnkj iDdk d`”kd rFkk rRi’pkr~ HkwfeLokeh gks x;k & iV~Vksa esa] —“kdkf/kdkj fo/kku dh /kkjk 101 ds v/khu rFkk tehankjh fo/kku dh /kkjk 39 ds v/khu [kkyh Hkwfe ds varj.k ij dksbZ fucZa/ku ugha & /kkjk 165¼1½ ds v/khu varj.k dk otZu & —f”k fHkUu Hkwfe ds fya, vkdf”kZr ugha gksrkA ¼iSjk 13
¼4½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq- 226 rFkk 227 & e-iz- —f”kd tksr mPpre lhek vf/kfu;e] 1960 & /kkjk 3 & uxj Hkwfe ¼vf/kdre lhek vkSj fofu;eu½ vf/kfu;e] 1976 & /kkjk 2¼Fk½ & uxj Hkwfe ¼vf/kdre lhek vkSj fofu;eu½ fujlu vf/kfu;e] 1999 & ih-vkb-,y- ds :i esa fjV vf/kdkfjrk dh O;kfIr & o”kZ 1941 esa tehankj }kjk Hkwfe iV~Vs ij iznku dh xbZ & fof/k ds izHkko ls iV~Vsnkj iDdk —“kd rFkk rRi’pkr~ HkwfeLokeh gks x;k & Hkwfe;k¡ —f”kd tksr vf/kfu;e ds v/khu foeqDr & uxj Hkwfe vf/kfu;e lhek vf/kfu;e fujflr & nksuksa vf/kdre esa ls izR;sd ds mica/k vkdf”kZr ugha gksrs & vfr’ks”k Hkwfe ds lhekadu rFkk ljdkj esa fufgr fd, tkus dk funs’k ugha fn;k tk ldrkA 2008 jk-fu- 143 myVk x;kA ¼iSjk 14 rFkk 15
(1) Contitution of India -- Art. 136 -- scope of -- new plea regarding effect of statutory enactment -- may be considered. [Para 12
(2) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S. 158(1) (b) -- M.B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950 -- Ss. 54(vii) and 101 -- M.B. Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951 -- S.39 -- pattas of lands granted for establishment of sugar factory in year 1941 -- name of lessee recorded as Gair Mourusi -- later on his name was recorded as Pucca tenant -- after enforcement of Code his name was recorded as Bhumiswami -- in absence of any contrary material regarding acceptance of status of Bhumiswami -- it will be deemed that fresh lease has been granted under section 39 of Zamindari Abolition Act read with section 101 of Tenancy Act. [Para 12
(3) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- Ss. 158 and 165(1) -- M.B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950 -- S. 101-- M.B. Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951 -- S. 39 -- lease granted by Zamindar in year 1940-41 -- lessee became Pucca tenant and thereafter Bhumiswami by operation of law -- no restriction on transfer of vacant land in pattas, under section101 of Tenancy Act or under section 39 of Zamindari Act -- bar of transfer under section 165(1) of Code -- does not attract for non-agricultural land. [Para 13
(4) Constitution of India -- Arts. 226 and 227 -- M.P. Ceiling On Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 -- S.3 --Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 -- S.2(q) -- Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act,1999 -- scope of writ jurisdiction as PIL -- land granted on lease by Zamindar in year 1941 -- lessee became Pucca tenant and thereafter Bhumiswami by operation of law -- land exempted under Agricultural Holdings Act -- Urban Land Ceiling Act repealed -- provisions of either Acts not applicable -- directions for demarcation of surplus land and vesting in the Government cannot be issued. 2008 RN 143 reversed. [Paras 14 and 15
Ranjan Gogoi, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.12.2007 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in a Public Interest Litigation registered and numbered as Writ Petition No.1773/2006. By the order impugned in the present appeal, directions have been issued by the Court for demarcation of the surplus land of the appellant - company both under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 (since repealed) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Urban Land Ceiling Act’) as well as the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agriculture Holding Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “the Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act). After the demarcation of the excess land in terms of the directions issued by the High Court, further directions have been issued for vesting of the excess land, both urban and agricultural, in the Government. Furthermore, the appellant - Company has been restrained from affecting any transfers of the urban land allotted to it and all transfers as may have been made have been declared as null and void by the High Court.
3. A brief resume of the relevant facts in which the above noted directions have been issued by the High Court may now be set out:
The appellant, a private limited company, is the owner of a sugar mill located at Dabra, district Gwalior in the State of Madhya Pradesh. A total of 215 bighas (approximately) of land was allotted to the appellant - Company in Samvat 1998 (corresponding to English Calender year 1941) on the basis of 6 pattas issued by Zamindar in whom the land had come to be vested. The pattas specified that the land was meant for setting up of the sugar factory and any kind of agricultural operations therein was prohibited. The pattas also specified that the same would be valid till the existence of the factory. After setting up of the sugar mill the Company appears to have run into certain financial difficulties and for the upkeep of the sugar mill and for modernization thereof the Company by a Resolution decided to sell/transfer some parts of the vacant land allotted to it. In fact surplus land stood transferred by way of sale to certain individuals and the area so transferred is roughly about 9 bighas. In these circumstances, the Writ Petitioin in question was filed as a Public Interest Litigation cotending that surplus land has been transferred contrary to the terms of the patta in connivance and collusion with the officials of the State Government. According to the petitioner more such transfers were contemplated.
4. The stand of the officials - respondents, initially, was that land measuring about 178 bighas stood recorded in the name of the appellant - Company in the revenue record of Samvat 2013. In the said records the name of the appellant was recorded as a “pucca tenant” under Section 54 (vii) of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tenancy Act’). Thereafter with coming into force of the M.P. Land Revenue Code in the year 1959 the name of the appellant - Company was recorded as a ‘bhumiswami’ in respect of the aforesaid land. The revenue records in support of the above facts were in fact enclosed to the return filed before the High Court on behalf of the State. A report dated 2.5.2003 of the primary revenue authority i.e. Naib Tehsildar reciting the above facts and the fact that the appellant Company was exampted from the operation of the provisions of the Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act by an order dated 8.1.1976 passed by the competent authority was also enclosed to the said return. Subsequently, however, an additional return dated 7.8.2007 was filed on behalf of the State wherein the right of the appellant to transfer the land contrary to the terms of the pattas issued to it was questioned, notwithstanding, its status as a Bhumiswami under the Land Revenue Code, 1959.
5. The appellant - Company and its principal Director who were impleaded responden
