Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 551 (MP)

P. J. Mathew v. State of M. P.

2007-05-09

RAJENDRA MENON

body2007
ORDER 1. As common questions are involved in all these petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Challenge in these petitions are made to the action of the State Government proposing to recover certain amounts from the petitioners treating them to be as encroachers, by the impugned action and notices, settlement amount and lease rent is being recovered. In WP No. 1061/05 the Cooperative Society has challenged the order Annexure P-1 dated 18.10.2004 passed by the respondents No. 2/Collector holding that the urban land proceedings is abated and acquisition proceedings stands confirmed. 3. According to the petitioner, the land in question situated in village Thatipur, Morar, Gwalior originally belonged to one Paijaram. After death of Paijaram land vested in the custody of various persons i.e. legal heirs of the deceased Paijaram and finally the original owners of the land sold it to Pt. Gouri Shankar Griha Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit. Petitioners were members of this society and purchased the plots from the society by registered sale deed after payment of consideration. Inter alia contending that the land comes under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the original owners have transferred the land illegally, action is proposed to be taken against the petitioners by the State Government. 4. Shri R.D. Jain, learned senior counsel for petitioners pointed out that before sale of the land by the original owners, the original owners had sought permission from the State Government and it is only after permission was granted to the original owners by the Government that land was sold to the society and subsequently to the petitioners. It is stated by Shri R.D. Jain that if there is some dispute between the State and the original owners and if the land comes under the purview of Urban Land Ceiling Act, it was for the State Government to refuse permission but once permission was granted to the original owners to sell the land, action cannot be taken against the petitioners on the ground of misrepresentation or fraud committed by the original owners. 5. Smt. Ami Prabal, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents/State pointed out that the original owners have committed fraud against the State Government in the matter of seeking permission. 5. Smt. Ami Prabal, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents/State pointed out that the original owners have committed fraud against the State Government in the matter of seeking permission. It is stated that the original owners were proceeded against in ceiling proceedings and possession of certain other lands belonging the owners were taken over by the State Government thereafter on misrepresentation by the original owners suppressing the fact that the disputed land had already been sold to the society before commencement of the ceiling proceedings, the permission was granted for transferring the land taken into Government permission in the ceiling proceedings with the land in question to the society and subsequently to the petitioners. It is stated that permission has been obtained by suppressing the facts with regard to taking of possession of certain land and return of possession under the ceiling regulation. 6. From the facts and materials that have come on record, it is seen that there is some dispute between the original owners and the State Government in the matter of granting permission, taken possession and sale of the land. However, petitioners being genuine purchasers cannot be put to loss for the lapses on the part of the original owners and the State Government. There is nothing to show that petitioner has committed any fraud on the State or have obtained the land by misrepresentation or fraud. If the original owners have committed any irregularities in the matter, it is for the State Government to recover the settlement amount or lease rent etc. from the original owners, petitioners cannot be put to loss. Petitioners being genuine purchasers from the society and purchase made by the society and the petitioners being purchasers after permission was granted by the State Government, the proposed action against the petitioners is wholly unsustainable. 7. Accordingly, all the petitions are allowed. The proposed action taken against the petitioners vide Annexures P-1 and P-2 filed in WP No. 8352/03 and other cases are hereby quashed. Similarly order Annexure P-1 dated 18.10.2004 passed in WP No. 1061/05 is also quashed as the society in question cannot be held responsible for any misrepresentation in the matter. The society has acted bona fide and therefore, taking action against the society and the bona fide purchasers is not warranted. Similarly order Annexure P-1 dated 18.10.2004 passed in WP No. 1061/05 is also quashed as the society in question cannot be held responsible for any misrepresentation in the matter. The society has acted bona fide and therefore, taking action against the society and the bona fide purchasers is not warranted. It is directed that no action shall be taken against the petitioners in all these cases in connection with the sale in question. However, liberty is granted to the State Government to recover the amount of settlement, lease rent, damages or dues from the original owners in accordance with law. The State Government shall be free to recover possession from the original owners in case original owners are in possession of any other land or to initiate any other action against the original owners. However, no action shall be taken by the State Government against the present petitioners who are the genuine purchasers of the land held by them and they shall not be dispossessed from the said land. 8. Petitions stand allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid without any order so as to cost.