ORDER

In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 19.04.2022 (Annexure P-3) passed by the respondent no.2; whereby certain irregularities have been found against the petitioner thereby violates sections 339 (C), 339 (D) and 339 (cha) of the Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in respect of Khasra No.2145/2, rakba 0.587, Mouja-Malhara Jot is directed to be acquired and the Tahsildar, Maharajpur is appointed as an Administrator to dispose of the remaining land by way of auction.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an agriculturist and is owner of certain agricultural land, situated at Mouja-Malhara Jot, District Chhatarpur. He submits that the land was duly diverted and other formalities were also completed. The petitioner sold certain part of the land by executing sale deeds to fulfill some necessary requirement of his family.

Surprisingly a show cause notice was served on the petitioner alleging that selling the lands violates provisions of sections 339 (A) and 339 (B) of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice submitting that the lands were duly diverted and all other formalities were completed, therefore, sold out certain lands. Thereafter, the concerning Nagar Panchayat has improved the site by constructing roads, electricity connections etc. Most of the purchasers have constructed their houses and are paying taxes and charges to the State of M.P. and therefore, there is no violation of the Act and Rules.Without affording opportunity of hearing and adducing evidence, respondent no.2 has passed the impugned order.

It is also submitted that the mandatory provisions under section 339(E) (3) and section 339(F) of the Act have not been complied with. Notices were not published in three local news paper for taking over the management of colony. Therefore, the order deserves to be set aside/stayed. Hence, this petition.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondents opposed the prayer and submitted that on perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that a proper show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, to which he had filed the reply.

However, not a single document has been filed along with the reply to show that the petitioner had diverted the land, had the colonizer's licence and other permissions to construct the colony/houses. After affording opportunity of proper hearing to the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed. Section 339(C) provides puishment for offence of illegal colonization, Section 339(D) provides punishment for abatement of the offence of illegal diversion of land or illegal colonization, Section 339 (E) provides for responsibility of persons associated in the act of illegal colonization. Vide impugned order, the Administrator has been appointed for the aforesaid purpose. So far as publication of notice in the newspapers is concerned, the same shall be done by the Administrator. The procedure has not yet been completed. The petition is pre-mature. The petitioner has not filed a single document along with the writ petition to show that he had valid permission to construct the colony or sale the plots. In such a situation, this petition is pre-mature and no interference is called for at this stage.

Heard the learned counsel for parties.

This Court finds force in the submissions of the learned counsel for respondents/State. The petitioner has not filed any document to show that there is compliance of section 172 of the Act. In absence of the same, no relief can be granted to the petitioner, at this stage. So far as publication of notices are concerned, the Administrator shall proceed in accordance with law.

The petition, being bereft of merits and substance, is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself.

(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE TG /-