The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for construction to be made in the local area as defined in Section 24(b) of the M.P. Vinirdishta Bhrashta Acharan Nivaran Adhiniyam, 1982, and the necessity for sufficient material to be placed before the authority by the Investigating Officer before granting permission.

JUDGMENT

B.D. Rathi, J.

1. The appellants have been convicted for an offence under Section 27 of the M.P. Vinirdishta Bhrashta Acharan Nivaran Adhiniyam, 1982 (for short "the Adhiniyam") and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default to suffer SI for three months. The impugned judgment dated 9-12-1997 was passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Sessions Trial No. 115/93. At the relevant point of time, appellants were respectively working as President and Secretary of Sarvodaya Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti, Bairagarh (hereinafter referred to as "the Samiti"), which was a registered Society. According to the prosecution case, without obtaining necessary approval and coloniser's licence from the Competent Officer and without valid transfer and mutation, appellant carved out plots on land bearing Survey Nos. 109, 116/2, 117/2, 110/2, 113/2 and 116/1 at Village Laukhedi, admeasuring 7.02 acres, and entered into agreements to sell the same to the members of the Samiti, as a result of which, houses were constructed thereon in violation of Sections 24, 25 and 26, punishable under Section 27 of the Adhiniyam. On the facts mentioned above, a memo was sent to the Commissioner by Collector, Bhopal vide memo No. 20/R-1/94, dated 18-1-1994, on the basis of which, direction for registration of crime and further investigation was issued by the Prescribed Authority, viz., Commissioner, Bhopal under Section 39 of the Adhiniyam. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Session and after completion of trial, impugned judgment was passed.

2. It is not disputed that for the purpose of providing plots to the members of the Samiti, agreements were entered into between the Samiti and joint Bhumiswamis, viz., Sunderlal, Kasturibai, Kedar and Raghunath for purchasing their lands for considerations of Rs. 50,000/- per acre excluding the sale price of Well, viz., Rs. 12,000/- and the possession was obtained after making a payment of Rs. 84,000/- to each Bhumiswami. For the aforesaid land, the Samiti had neither taken No Objection Certificate from Nazul Department nor any permission for its diversion and development. It is also admitted that on deposition of land fees of Rs. 5,105/- and Development Charges of Rs. 20,000/- by the members of the Samiti, agreements on stamp papers were executed for allotment of plots to them and they had also constructed about 60 to 70 houses on the respective plots. It is also admitted that No Objection Certificate from Nazul Department, Licence for developing colony, diversion order and sanctioned maps for construction of houses, were not obtained by the Samiti.

3. During the trial, the appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge and contended that they had been falsely implicated.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Samiti neither carved out plots on the land, nor granted permission to the members of the Samiti for carrying out any construction. According to her, it was agreed to between the Samiti and its members that only after getting the land diverted and obtaining necessary approval from the Competent Authorities, the plots will be allotted to them and only then they would get right to construct their houses on the corresponding plots, but members of the Samiti, after taking unauthorised possession of the land, have constructed their houses. For this, learned Counsel has invited attention of the Court to the order dated 8-1-93 passed by IV Civil Judge Class II, Bhopal in Civil Suit No. 121-A/89, whereby injunction was granted to restrain the defendants from construction on the suit land in favour of the appellants herein. It was also argued by learned Counsel that sanction was not properly granted by the Prescribed Authority as no report was submitted by the Investigating Officer before the authority. Such sanction could not have been granted on the basis of memo sent by Collector. Therefore, cognizance in this case was void ab initio.

5. In re