Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 675 (MP)

Agrawal Trading v. State of M. P.

2013-06-18

A.K.Shrivastava, B.D.Rathi

body2013
ORDER Shrivastava, J. 1. This is an appeal under section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 against the order dated 4.11.2006 passed by learned writ Court whereby the writ petition of the appellant has been dismissed. 2. No exhaustive statements of fact are required to be narrated for the purposes of disposal of this appeal since they are elaborately mentioned by the learned writ Court in its order from para 1 to 4. The only point which is to be decided in this appeal is whether the Officer-in-charge of the Krishi Upaj Mandi, sent the proposal to allot the land in question in favour of the writ petitioner/ appellant or the Chairman of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti had sent it to the Director, Mandi to accept the proposal for allotment of the land to the appellant by way of sale. 3. The position of law is well settled. If valid elected body of the Krishi Upaj Mandi is in existence, there should be a resolution of the said elected body of the Mandi. It is equally true, if the said elected body is superseded then the proposal is to be made by Officer-in-charge in terms to section 56(3) of the M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 (in short “the Adhiniyam”). The foundation stone of the case is the letter dated 2.6.1991 (Annexure R2-5) which was sent by the Chairman, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Morena to the Commissioner/Director, Mandi to accord sanction for allotment of the land to the appellant at the rate of Rs.15.70 paise per square feet by way of sale. Undisputedly, on this date the elected body was in existence and therefore, according to us there should be a resolution of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti for the said sale in favour of the appellant, which is admittedly lacking in the present case. According to us, the Chairman of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti in his personal capacity was not having any locus standi asking the Director, Mandi to accord its permission for the allotment of impugned plot in favour of the appellant. 4. According to us, the Chairman of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti in his personal capacity was not having any locus standi asking the Director, Mandi to accord its permission for the allotment of impugned plot in favour of the appellant. 4. Basing upon the basic foundation document dated 2.6.1991 (Annexure R2-5) of the said Chairman, an order (Annexure P-9) was passed by the Director, Mandi on 4.2.1992 giving permission to accept the consideration at the rate of Rs.20/- per square feet towards the sale price of the disputed plot and it was directed to the Secretary of the Krishi Upaj Mandi to accept the consideration accordingly. In pursuance to order dated 4.2.1992 (Annexure P-9) the Officer-in-charge of the Mandi accepted Rs.2.00 Lac on 22.2.1992 from the appellant. 5. Hence, according to us, on 2.6.1991 when the elected body of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Morena was in existence there should be a resolution of the allotment of the impugned land in favour of the appellant in terms of section 17(2)(xvii) of the Adhiniyam. Admittedly, there was no such resolution of the elected body in favour of the appellant and therefore, according to us the Director, Mandi in absence of any valid resolution should not have directed the Secretary of the said Mandi (since the elected body was superseded and the Officer-in-charge was appointed) to accept the sale consideration at the rate of Rs.20/- per square feet from the appellant/writ-petitioner for the allotment of the land to him by way of sale. 6. In the light of the aforesaid factual backdrop and legal position, we are of the view that the order passed by learned writ Court does not require any interference. However, on bare perusal of Annexure R2-7A dated 15.11.2002 we find that along with the copy of the impugned order (Annexure P-1 filed before the learned writ Court) a cheque bearing No.082105 dated 14.11.2002 of District Cooperative Bank, Morena Branch was sent to Ram Swaroop Modi who although received the copy of the order but refused to accept the cheque. Resultantly, again on the next day i.e. 16.11.2002 the said cheque was sent to him but it was not accepted by him. Resultantly, again on the next day i.e. 16.11.2002 the said cheque was sent to him but it was not accepted by him. Thus, according to us, the appellant is entitled to the amount of Rs.2.00 Lac which he has deposited in the office of the respondents along with interest @6% per annum from the date when the said amount was deposited by the appellant till 15.11.2002 when the cheque of Rs.2.00 Lac was sent back to him along with copy of order Annexure P-1 dated 2.11.2002 passed by the respondent No.2. It is further made clear that in case the said amount is not refunded to the appellant on or before 31.07.2013 the same shall carry interest @9% per annum. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the property in question is in possession of the appellant since 1973. This position is not disputed by learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4. On bare perusal of the record this Court finds that earlier the appellant was allotted the land in question in 1973 in Mandi premises upon which he raised the structure converting it into a shop and since then appellant is carrying his business therein. Earlier as lessee the appellant was possessing the disputed property since 1973 and thereafter by virtue of the order dated 4.2.1992 (Annexure P-9) of the Director, Mandi he is possessing the property in question, therefore, if the appellant submits necessary application before the Mandi Committee for allotment of the disputed property as owner it may be considered sympathetically by keeping in view that for last 40 years the appellant is possessing the disputed property and carrying on the business therein and the said application may be decided in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid observation, without interfering in the impugned order passed by learned writ Court this appeal stands disposed of.