Judgment ( 1. ) PETITIONER in this writ petition is assailing the orders (P-l, P- 2 and P-3)by which the colonizers licence granted to the petitioner has been cancelled the petitioner was granted colonizer registration under M. P. Gram Panchayat (Registration of Colonizers Terms and Conditions) Rules, 1999 (for short the rules ). The ground on which the licence has been cancelled includes that land in question has not been got diverted by the petitioner and there is violation of the conditions of licence and development has been done in an illegal manner. Petitioner was directed to maintain the status quo as per order (P-2) passed by SDO on 4-9-2001. Against this order, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector; the appeal has been dismissed as per order dated 26-9-2001. ( 2. ) PETITIONER submits that under Rule 9 of the rules no objection certificate has to be obtained by the competent authority of the concerned department. It was the duty of the competent authority who is making registration to have obtained the no objection certificate from the Tehsildar or Nazul officer, or from SDO under Section 172 of M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. Reliance is also placed on sub-rule (2) of Rule 9; if the no objections or permissions described in sub-rule (1) are not issued by the concerned department/office within a period of forty five days from the date of the receipt of letter from the competent authority, it shall be deemed they have no objection and the application shall be disposed off within ninety days from the date of the receipt of the application under Rule 8. The matter of diversion has not been decided by the respondents; there is no provision to suspend the registration; it can only be cancelled under the rules. No notice was issued to cancel the licence/registration, hence the action is bad in law. ( 3. ) THE respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in their return contend that the petitioner was granted the licence under the Rules; the President of said society without getting the land diverted carved out the plots and plots were made in other Khasras not covered by registration certificate. Show-cause notice (Annexure R-l) was served on the petitioner. Reply (R-2) was filed. Petitioner was heard in the matter and thereafter the order has been passed. Registration has been rightly cancelled. ( 4. Show-cause notice (Annexure R-l) was served on the petitioner. Reply (R-2) was filed. Petitioner was heard in the matter and thereafter the order has been passed. Registration has been rightly cancelled. ( 4. ) THERE are several allegations levelled against petitioner by Shri bhagchand Sahu, the Intervenor, in the reply as to commission of irregularities. ( 5. ) SHRI Dixit, learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that action is in contravention to Rule 9 and also notice as per Rule 7 of the Rules was not issued. Under Rule 9, it is the duty of the competent authority to obtain the no objection certificate from the SDO regarding diversion. The order is bad in law. There is no provision for suspension for which a notice was given and the licence has been cancelled for which no notice was given. ( 6. ) MS. Seema Agarwal and Shri M. K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for respondents and Intervenor respectively contended that the order is proper; land has not been diverted so far as such the cancellation of registration is proper. Petitioner was not entitled to cut area into small plot and sell it and make the development until and unless the diversion is obtained. Thus, no interference is called for in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. ( 7. ) THE first submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order of cancellation of registration has been passed whereas notice was issued for suspending the licence. True it is that Rule 7 of the Rules speaks for cancellation of registration certificate and the term "cancellation" was not mentioned in the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner as contained in p-7 = R-l. When the proposal was to suspend the licence it should not have been cancelled. However, the fact remains that the land has not been diverted so far. The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner that it was for the competent authority making the registration to obtain the no objection/permission from the concerned department as provided under Rule 9, thus, permission/no objection certificate should have been obtained by the competent authority under Section 172 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code can not come to the rescue of the petitioner as Rule 9 required obtaining of no objection/permission; petitioner has to get the land diverted on his own from the concerned authority. Thereafter no objection/permission has to be sent by the concerned department. Competent authority has to obtain no objection as to colonization not to get land diverted which can be done on certain prerequisites under Section 172 deposit of amount and enquiry etc. It is not for the competent authority to set the machinery in motion for first time. Rule 9 intends an enquiry to be done whether an applicant has legal impediment or not and the application is in accordance with law. Obviously it was the duty of the petitioner to have obtained diversion of the land. Thus, until and unless the land is diverted no action could be undertaken by the petitioner over the land in question. ( 8. ) IT is stated that matter of diversion is pending before the SDO, jabalpur who is the competent authority to pass an order under Section 172 of MPLRC and is also competent authority under Rules of 1999. Thus, the sdo is directed to decide the matter of diversion and based thereupon he has to reconsider matter of cancellation of registration. ( 9. ) SINCE the land had not yet been diverted, the portion of the order that petitioner should not undertake any activity oyer the land in question, the order, passed by the SDO to that extent is upheld. However, the portion of the order cancelling the registration is set aside. However, petitioner is restrained from selling/making alienation in any manner and from raising any construction; no activity of construction shall be undertaken by the petitioner or any person on his behalf or otherwise. It is the duty of the respondents to see that no activity is undertaken until and unless due permission is granted. ( 10. ) LET first matter of diversion be decided by the SDO and thereafter the petitioner should be heard in the matter of cancellation and matter be decided in accordance with law by the SDO, Jabalpur. ( 11. ) THE writ petition is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. The order P-2 is modified to the extent mentioned above. ( 12. ) LET the matter be decided within four months from today by respondent No. 2. The order P-l shall not come in the way of respondent No. 2. ( 13. ) COSTS on parties.