2009 jk fu 1 2009 RN 1
¼mPp U;k;ky;½ (SUPREME COURT)
U;k- yksdsoj flag ikrk rFkk U;k- oh- ,l- fljiqjdjeaMy
Lokeshwar Singh Panta and V.S. Sirpurkar, JJ.
e-ç- x`g fuekZ.k fo- fko kadj ekafMYk rFkk vU;
M.P. Housing Board v. Shiv Shankar Mandil and others
flfoy vihy Ø- 3840&3841 lu~ 2001] 3842&3843 lfgr lu~ 2001(
fu.khZr fnukad 24-10-2008
Civil Appeals No. 3840-3841 of 2001 with 3842-3843 of 2001;
Decided on 24.10.2008.
¼2½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e- iz-½ && /kkjk 57 ¼1½ 181 rFkk 182 && ljdkjh Hkwfe && iV~Vk iznku fd;k x;k && ,slk iV~Vk dsoy /kkjk 182 ds v/khu jn~n fd;k tk ldrk gS] fdlh vizR;{k jhfr ls ughaA ¼iSjk 11
¼3½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e- iz-½ && /kkjk 235&237 && utwy Hkwfe && dksbZ lk{; ugha fd Hkwfe dk fookfnr Hkkx pjkxkg ds fy, i`Fkd j[kk x;k Fkk && ,slh Hkwfe ds O;iorZu dk otZu ugha && mica/k ykxw ugha gksrsA ¼iSjk 12
¼4½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 51 && iqufoZyksdu dh ‘kfDr && ;qfDr;qDr le; ds Hkhrj iz;qDr dh tkuk pkfg, && O;fDrxr fgr l`V gks tkrk gS ftlus iV~Vs ds fy, /ku dk lank; Hkh dj fn;k gks && lajpuk dk fuekZ.k dj fy;k gks && mldk vf/kdkj Nhuk ugha tk ldrkA , vkb vkj 1969 ,l lh 1297 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 14
(1) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S. 181 - Nazul land having Nistar rights of grazing -- can be leased out by State Government -- it is owned by Government. [Para 8
(2) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S. 57 (1). 181 and 182--Government land -- lease granted -- such lease can be cancelled under S. 182 only and not by any indirect method. [Para 11
(3) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- Ss. 235-237 -- Nazul land -- no evidence that disputed piece of land was set apart for pasture -- no bar in diverting such land - provisions under not applicable. [Para 12
(4) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S. 51 -- power of Review-should he exercised with ill reasonable time -- interest of individual ceased who also paid money for lease -- built structure -- his right cannot be taken away. AIR 1969 SC 1297 relied on. [Para 14
Sirpurkar, J. -- 1. This Judgment will dispose of Civil Appeals No. 38403841 of 2001 and 3842-3843 of 2001. All the appeals relate to a common judgment passed by Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior, by which the Division Bench disposed of two Letters Patent Appeals, being Letters Patent Appeals No. 315 of 1996 and 296 of 1996.The first two appeals are filed by the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board"), whereas, the other two appeals are filed by State of Madhya Pradesh and one of its officers. Controversy relates to a plot of land in Morena, Madhya Pradesh, measuring 11 biswa in Survey Plot No. 462. The private respondent, namely, Shiv Shankar Mandil submitted an application on 29.12.1990 to the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Morena, contending therein that he had his small scale industry manufacturing steel furniture and he needed some land to establish the unit. The General Manager, District Industries Centre, Morena submitted an application by Letter No. 138 dated 8.1.1991 requesting to transfer Survey No. 462 measuring 11 biswa which was recorded as "Charnoi Extra Nazul" in favour of the respondents for establishing an industry. This proposal was sent to Tahsildar, Morena, who invited objections from various authorities. No objections were, however, received by him. He, thereafter, obtained the consent of the Municipal Officer, Morena. He also consulted Town and Country Planning, Health and Police Departments and proposed the transfer to the Collector. The Collector on consideration of all the facts, ordered on 27.7.1991, a transfer of the said land to the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Morena under Clause 4-3, para 36 of the Revenue Book Circulars. It is on the basis of this, that the District Industries Centre, Morena by his order dated 29.7.1991 agreed to allot the said land on three conditions:
(i) Obtaining the appropriate approval of the layout plan;
(ii) Obtaining building permission from the concerned Department;
(iii) Submission of a map of the lay out plan. In pursuance thereof, a Lease Deed was created for 99 years on 30.7.1991.
2. However, Assistant Engineer, Madhya Pradesh Housing Board, Sub-Division Morena approached the Collector by Letter dated 23.8.1991 and pointed out that the allotment of Survey No. 462 made by Industries Department to the respondents was objectionable. It was pointed out that said Survey Number was in the middle of a residential plan of the Board. It was then pointed out that a letter was already written by Commissioner of the Board for transferring Survey Nos. 458,462,482 and 485, which were Government lands in favour of the Board. The proposal for transfer of Survey No. 462 was, however, already over. Further, the Board had started acquisition proceedings by paying the diversion charges. It was further pointed out that the Board had also sought for paper possession in respect of the aforementioned four Survey Numbers and intended to execute a residential plan, wherein, 1000 residential plots had been proposed for s01ving the residential problem in Morena Town. It was expressed further that if M/s. S.S. Industries of the respondents was pern1itted to establish an industry, then the plan of the Board would be upset and the expenditure invested in the development plan would be wasted. It was, therefore, prayed that the allotment of the land of Survey No. 462 should be cancelled and the work commenced by M/s. S.S; Industries should be stopped. The Collector, by his order dated 27.8.1991 directed the respondents to maintain status quo and further ordered the respondents not to construct on the allotted land. The respondents, therefore, filed the first Writ Petition, being Writ Petition No. 1513 of 1991.
3. During the pendency of this Writ Petition, the Board of Revenue of Madhya Pradesh passed an order at the instance of Collector, Morena, permitting the Collector to review his own ord
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.