Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 633 (MP)

Helen Wallia v. State of M. P.

2003-04-29

A.K.MISHRA

body2003
JUDGMENT Petitioner, in this writ petition, has assailed the permission Annexure-K, granted by the Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal for prosecuting the petitioner u/s 39 of the M.P. Vinirdishta Bhrashta Aacharan Nivaran Adhiniyam, 1982 (hereinafter in short referred to as "Adhiniyam"). It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioners are citizens and residents of Bhopal and recorded as Bhumiswami of certain lands situated at village Koh-e-Fiza. Tehsil Huzur, district Bhopal. The disputed land was initially owned by Begum Sajida Sultana and by a registered gift deed Annexure-A dated 16.6.1970 entire disputed land was transferred. Proceedings under the M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act, 1960 were initiated against Begum Sajida Sultana wherein the said gift deed has been examined and has been found valid by the Board of Revenue as per order Annexure-B. Begum Ayesha Sultana executed a sale-deed dated 11.11.1980 to Mrs. Rasik Nagin Shah and on 31.7.1982. Mrs. Rasik Nagin Shah transferred the said land to the petitioners. On 9.91976 the Urban Land Ceiling Act had come into force in the State of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, Begum Ayesha Sultana who was recorded as Bhumiswami, submitted her return to the Competent Authority under Urban Land Ceiling Act, and in the master plan, the land use of the said land is shown as "Lake Front (Amod-Pramod)". Looking to the land use of the existing land the Urban Land Ceiling Authority vide order Annexure-D dated 14.2.1986 closed the Urban Land Ceiling case because Urban land Ceiling Authority held that it is not vacant land, Name of the petitioner was recorded as Bhumiswami vide order Annexure-F dated 12.1.1989 and 'vas recorded in the subsequent revenue papers. Petitioner further submits that after the petitioners have been recorded as Bhumiswami, the petitioners on different date by registered sale-deeds transferred part of their land to different persons as per the statement of said transaction Annexure-H. Purchasers have been recorded as Bhumiswami in record. Petitioner submits that the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Vinirdishta Bhrasht Aacharan Nivaran Adhiniyam, 1982, provides for prosecution of an agriculturist who transfers agricultural land to another person for agriculture purpose and it violates Articles 14 of the Constitution of India. Section 26 of Adhiniyam prohibits partition of ones own holding whereas partition is provided u/s 178 M.P. Land Revenue Code. 1959. Petitioner has been ordered to be prosecuted for violation of M.P. Vinirdishta Bhrasht Aacharan Nivaran Adhiniyam, 1982. Section 26 of Adhiniyam prohibits partition of ones own holding whereas partition is provided u/s 178 M.P. Land Revenue Code. 1959. Petitioner has been ordered to be prosecuted for violation of M.P. Vinirdishta Bhrasht Aacharan Nivaran Adhiniyam, 1982. It is - alleged that permission has been granted ex parte. No enquiry has been conducted. Petitioners are agriculturist. There is no law which prohibits transfer of O. 25 decimal or O.35 decimal areas of an agricultural land to anyone. Petitioners are not responsible for further activities, if any, that takes place on the said land after it is transferred. If the purchaser violates any rule or law of the State then action may be started against said purchaser alone, but not against the sellers/petitioners. Land has been sold by the petitioner in the form of agriculture land. Hence, petitioner cannot be prosecuted for violation of the Ahiniyam of 1982. No return has been filed by the respondent No.4. Writ petition was admitted in the year 1992. It is regrettable situation that in large number of cases of 1991,1992 it is found that the State Government has not chosen to file the return. That is how the interest of State is protected. It is submitted that OIC has not taken any interest to file the return, for that he may be answerable to the State Government. A perusal of Impugned order Annexure-K indicates that work of colonization has been undertaken by the petitioner and houses have been constructed. Thus, provision of sections. 24, 26 and 28 have been violated which are punishable u/s 27 and 30. Hence the permission has been granted to register the case u/s 39 of the Act. Section 39 of the Act of 1982 reads thus: ' 39. Cognizance of offences -- All offences under this Act shall be cognizable: Provided that the Police Officer shall not investigate an offence under this Act except on a direction of the prescribed authority not below the rank of Commissioner of Division on a report admitted by him to such authority. Cognizance of offences -- All offences under this Act shall be cognizable: Provided that the Police Officer shall not investigate an offence under this Act except on a direction of the prescribed authority not below the rank of Commissioner of Division on a report admitted by him to such authority. Provided further that the State Government may, at any time for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the propriety of any order passed by the Commissioner of the Division at prescribed authority either on its own motion or on reference made by the prescribed authority, shall call for and examine the record of any case pending before or disposed by such authority and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks it." As a matter of fact permission has been granted to "investigate an offence" as per order Annexure-K. In my opinion, as large number of sale-deeds have been executed, on which houses have been constructed without following the provisions of the Adhiniyam, particularly when section 24, 25, 26 and 28 have been violated, which is punishable, thus, I find that no illegality has been committed while granting permission to make the investigation under section 39 of the Adhiniyam. Writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. No orders as to costs.