Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 9 (MP)

Kamal Singh Narre v. State of M. P.

2013-01-02

RAJENDRA MENON

body2013
ORDER 1. Petitioner claims to be a person, who is owner of certain land measuring 7.57 Acres comprising of Khasra Nos. 135/7, 136/1, 135/5 and 135/6 situated in District Hoshangabad. It is the case of the petitioner that he alongwith one Shri Ashok Jamnani applied for development of colony in respect of the land in question. Permission has been granted under Rule 12 of the MP Colonizer Registration Nirbandhan Tatha Sharten Niyam, 1999 and under the MP Panchayat Rajya Adhiniyam. Thereafter, certain conditions have been imposed for development of the land, but by the impugned order-dated 3.6.2011 - respondent No. 3 has imposed an additional condition to the effect that petitioner should comply with the directions of section 165(6) of the MP Land Revenue Code and before selling the plots the petitioner should obtain permission of the competent authority. It is stated that permission under section 165(6) is not required to be obtained, as the provision is not applicable to the petitioner in view of the fact that the land in question is not agricultural land and the same is located within the limits of Municipal Council, Hoshangabad and, therefore, the provision of section 165(6) is not applicable. 2. Inter alia contending that the additional condition to this effect imposed by respondent No.3 by the communication dated 3.6.2011 is unsustainable, this writ petition has been filed. 3. Notices have been issued to the respondents and the matter is pending since 22.2.2012 and till date respondents have not filed any reply. 4. From the records it is seen that on the last date time was granted to the respondents as a matter of last indulgence and even today reply is not filed by the respondents. 5. Shri Vishal Dhagat, learned counsel, submits that the provisions of section 165(6) is not applicable for the reasons indicated hereinabove and in support of the same he invites my attention of a judgment rendered by a Division Banch of this Court in the case of Aildas Vs. Board of Revenue and others, 1973 JLJ 117 =1973 RN 58. 6. 5. Shri Vishal Dhagat, learned counsel, submits that the provisions of section 165(6) is not applicable for the reasons indicated hereinabove and in support of the same he invites my attention of a judgment rendered by a Division Banch of this Court in the case of Aildas Vs. Board of Revenue and others, 1973 JLJ 117 =1973 RN 58. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and finding the contentions advanced by Shri Vishal Dhagat to be prima facie correct in the light of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Aildas (supra), matter is remanded back to respondent No.3 with the following directions: On the petitioner’s filing a certifid copy of this order alongwith relevant documents and objection and a photocopy of the judgment rendered in the case of Aildas (supra), respondent No.3 shall reconsider the matter of imposing the said condition as indicated hereinabove and shall decide the question afresh in accordance to law within a period of one month, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, and communicate the decision to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, with the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner, the petition stands disposed of.