ORDER 1. The petitioner before before this Court is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 in the name and style of “Malwa Vanaspati and Chemicals Company Ltd.,” has filed this present petition through its Director. 2. The erstwhile Maharaja Holkar State vide order dated 28.11.1944 has accepted the petitioner Company's offer to float a public limited Company for production of vegetable Ghee and the development of such other allied industry and an order was published in the Holkar Gazette called as Huzur Shree Shankar Order. Order No.493 was published on 28.11.1944 (Annexure P-1). It has been further stated that subsequently a Notification was issued under the provisions of Indore Land Acquisition Act, 1919 on 11.2.1946 under section 4 proposing to acquire 41.38 acres of land. The notification was published in Holkar Gazette on 11.2.1946 (Annexure P-2). Thereafter on 14.2.1946 a declaration under section 6 of the Indore Land Acquisition Act was published by the Holkar State in respect of 41.38 acres of land. Again on 24.3.1946 a Notification was issued under section 4 of the Indore Land Acquisition Act intending to acquire 1.10 acres of land intending to acquire 1.10 acres of land and the Holkar State issued a Notification under section 6 on 2.4.1946 in respect of the same land. The petitioner Company was placed in possession on 1.4.1946 in respect of the land measuring 4.33 acres. The petitioner has filed possession letter and payment of receipt of compensation as Annexures P-6 and P-7. The land was acquired and handed over to the petitioner Company, the compensation was paid and the petitioner became absolute title holder of the property. 3. That a part of the land of the petitioner Company was acquired by Madhya Bharat Government which was the successor Government of the Holkar State. A notification was issued on 24.2.1956 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquiring 2.38 acres and the Notification No.54 dated 27.2.1956 is on record. The petitioner Company was paid compensation being land owner by the Madhya Bharat Government. The petitioner Company right from the date the land has been handed over to the petitioner Company, is recorded as owner of the land. The petitioner Company got their name mutated in all revenue records. Copies of the Khasra entries for the year 1951-1952 are also on record as Annexure P-9. The petitioner Company right from the date the land has been handed over to the petitioner Company, is recorded as owner of the land. The petitioner Company got their name mutated in all revenue records. Copies of the Khasra entries for the year 1951-1952 are also on record as Annexure P-9. It has been further stated that the petitioner Company also submitted an application under the provisions of M.P. Land Revenue Code for diversion of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose and a diversion order was passed on 26.10.1983. It has also been stated that proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act were also initiated against the petitioner Company acknowledging the petitioner as owner of the land. The matter was contested by the petitioner Company, however, as the Urban Land Ceiling Act was repealed, the proceedings came to an end. 4. The petitioner Company has further stated that they are paying property tax in respect of the Company's building and factory to the Indore Municipal Corporation, Indore. The petitioner Company after commencement of their commercial production in the year 1950, on account of bad market conditions, suffered losses and in the year 2003 the Company became a Sick Unit. The petitioner Company has availed financial assistance from various Banks and ultimately took financial assistance from an Asset Reconstruction Company to repay the secured debts of Banks and Financial Institutions and subsequently took financial assistance from private parties to repay the dues of the Asset Reconstruction Company. The petitioner Company, in order to clear the various loans and also keeping in view the need of the hour and keeping in view the Indore Master Plan, as the land use is Industrial/Commercial, applied to Collector, Indore to issue a No Objection Certificate. The Land Acquisition Officer, on the basis of the application submitted by the petitioner Company, sought opinion from the Tahsildar, Nazul and a report was submitted by the Tahsildar Nazul on 8.11.2012. The petitioner Company also applied for issuance of No Objection Certificate from the Nazul Department and the Nazul Officer on 4.12.2012 issued a letter to the petitioner as to why they want a No Objection Certificate. The petitioner Company also applied for issuance of No Objection Certificate from the Nazul Department and the Nazul Officer on 4.12.2012 issued a letter to the petitioner as to why they want a No Objection Certificate. The petitioner Company promptly submitted a reply on 20.12.2012 stating that they are the land owners and wants to develop the land as per the Master Plan and, therefore, as a map has to be sanctioned from the Town and Country Planning Department, a No Objection Certificate is certainly required from the Tahsildar Nazul. 5. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned senior counsel that on 16.8.2013, Tahsildar Nazul submitted his report on the basis of application submitted by the petitioner Company, that the petitioner Company is Bhumiswami continuously since 1992 – 1993. In the month of February 2014 a small piece of land was sold to certain persons. The buyers got their name mutated in the revenue records on 2.4.2012, however, on 2.8.2014, the Mutation Officer has suo motu cancelled the mutation and against the order cancelling the mutation, the buyers have preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue which is pending. It has been further stated by the petitioner Company that on 31.10.2014, the respondent No.2 - Collector, District, Indore has directed the District Registrar not to register any document in respect of the land belonging to the petitioner Company. The petitioner Company submitted letters of request for obtaining copy of letter dated 31.10.2014, however, the documents was not given to the petitioner Company. On the contrary, a letter dated 18.11.2014 was received by the petitioner Company by which the petitioner Company was directed to furnish the sale deeds in respect of the land sold by the petitioner Company. Reference was also made to some complaint dated 7.6.2014. The petitioner Company submitted its reply on 26.11.2014 and again demanded the copies of the documents. It has been further stated that vide order dated 2.12.2014, the Collector Indore has decided some complaint dated 7.6.2014 without providing an opportunity to the petitioner Company and has also directed the authorities to take possession of the land admeasuring 41.38 acres. It was held by the Collector that the land vests in the Government with immediate effect (Annexure P-22). It has been further stated that vide order dated 2.12.2014, the Collector Indore has decided some complaint dated 7.6.2014 without providing an opportunity to the petitioner Company and has also directed the authorities to take possession of the land admeasuring 41.38 acres. It was held by the Collector that the land vests in the Government with immediate effect (Annexure P-22). It has been further claimed that on 4.12.2014 the Collector took possession of the land, locks were placed over the main gate of the Factory and a panchnama was prepared on 4.12.2014. The petitioner Company being aggrieved by the alleged unilateral action of the Collector, came up before this Court by filing writ petition i.e., Writ Petition No.8953/2014 and this Court has set aside the order passed by the Collector dated 2.12.2014 and the Collector was directed to pass a fresh order after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner Company. This Court has passed an order on 28.1.2015. It has been further stated that the respondent Collector directed the petitioner Company to appear on 23.2.2015 and on 23.2.2015 the Collector himself was on Tour and the matter was posted for 2.3.2015. The petitioner Company demanded copies of relevant documents including the complaint dated 5.6.2014 and the documents were also provided to the petitioner Company. The petitioner Company also submitted its objections on 9.3.2015 requesting the Collector to inform the petitioner Company that under which provision of law the Collector is proceeding ahead in the matter. However, the respondent Collector has rejected the applications and again an order was passed on 9.3.2015. The petitioner Company again came up before this Court by filing writ petition i.e., Writ Petition No.1748/2015 which was again allowed directing the Collector to decide the applications afresh. The order was passed by this Court on 18.3.2015. Thereafter the petitioners have appeared before the Collector on 23.3.2015 and the Collector has disposed of the petitioner's application by order dated 25.3.2015. Thereafter the Collector after passing an order on 25.3.2015 has directed the Tahsildar to open the locks and to provide the documents to the petitioner Company and to prepare a Panchnama. Thereafter the petitioners have appeared before the Collector on 23.3.2015 and the Collector has disposed of the petitioner's application by order dated 25.3.2015. Thereafter the Collector after passing an order on 25.3.2015 has directed the Tahsildar to open the locks and to provide the documents to the petitioner Company and to prepare a Panchnama. The petitioner Company was not permitted to take out documents from their office, as stated in the writ petition, and a reply was filed by the petitioner Company to the complaint dated 5.6.2014 regarding maintainability of the proceedings and also in respect of the jurisdiction of respondent No.2. The respondent Collector, as argued by the petitioner Company, without granting proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner Company finally closed the proceedings and has passed an order which is impugned in the present writ petition. The impugned order dated 1.4.2015 is under challenge before this Court by which the Collector has held that the land now vests with the State of Madhya Pradesh and therefore, possession of the land should be taken by the State Government. It has been further argued by the learned senior counsel that the impugned order has been passed by taking shelter of section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act and by no stretch of imagination, section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act is applicable in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. It has been argued that in the present case, no award under section 11 of the Act was passed by the Collector and the Land Acquisition Act has been repealed w.e.f. 1.1.2014 and, therefore, no action can be taken under the repealed Act. It has also been argued that the Company has directly paid compensation to the land owners and the land in question has been vested with the petitioner Company and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the Collector could have taken an action under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. It has also been argued by the learned senior counsel that the Collector has also taken shelter of the Revenue Book Circulars Khand 1 No.4 and the ground raised by the petitioner Company is that the instructions under the Revenue Book Circulars are only executive instructions and have no statutory force of law. It has also been argued by the learned senior counsel that the Collector has also taken shelter of the Revenue Book Circulars Khand 1 No.4 and the ground raised by the petitioner Company is that the instructions under the Revenue Book Circulars are only executive instructions and have no statutory force of law. The Collector who was jurisdictionally incompetent to take action in the matter has passed an illegal order without any authority to do so and, therefore, the impugned order dated 1.4.2014 deserves to be set aside. Various other grounds have also been raised by the petitioner Company and it has been argued that the land in question is exclusively under the ownership of the petitioner Company. The petitioner Company is the title holder of the property. It is recorded as owner of the property in revenue records and, therefore, by taking shelter of some provision which is not applicable in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the entire action of the Collector, Indore stands vitiated. The petitioner Company has also argued before this Court that the Company was facing financial crunch and they are left with no other choice except to sale the piece of land to satisfy its borrowers including the Banks as well as Asset Companies. The petitioner Company also wanted to develop the land as per the Master Plan, 2001 and, therefore, entire action of the Collector of taking away the land from the lawful title holder, without there being any provision of law, deserves to be quashed by this Court. 6. A rejoinder has also been filed in the matter and it has been stated that the petitioner Company continued with the managing activities upto 2012 and as the petitioner Company was facing financial crunch, part of the land has been sold. It has also been stated in the rejoinder that reference to section 57 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code is improper and incorrect. It has been stated that the aforesaid statutory provision of law does not confer any jurisdiction over the Collector to take over possession of the land belonging to the petitioner Company. It has also been stated that the petitioner has become absolute Bhumiswami of the land and a Bhumiswami cannot be deprived of his land on a frivolous complaint filed by inter-meddler. It has also been stated that the petitioner has become absolute Bhumiswami of the land and a Bhumiswami cannot be deprived of his land on a frivolous complaint filed by inter-meddler. It has been stated that the land was sold to dispose of dues of financial institutions to meet the statutory liabilities, to meet the liability of the labour and other institutions and no part of the sale proceeds has been diverted for personal benefit of any Director or shareholder of the Company. The petitioner Company has prayed for quashment of the order dated 1.4.2015. 7. A detailed and exhaustive reply has been filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh and the stand of the State Government is that the erstwhile Maharaja of Holkar State under the Huzur Shree Shankar issued order dated 28.11.1944 accepted the proposal of the petitioner to float a Public Limited Company for production of vegetable ghee and development of other allied industries and thereafter the land was acquired for the purpose of setting up a factory and other production activity. The State Government has further stated that after sometime the petitioner Company has closed the production and the factory was also closed and no production activity is going on for the last 10 years. The respondent State has filed copies of tax returns of the petitioner Company and their contention is that no production is going on since long time. It has also been stated that the land was acquired under the Indore Land Acquisition Act, 1919 and the Act is akin to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and as the purpose of acquisition was frustrated in midway and if such purpose is not fulfilled then the land can very well be reverted back and the same shall vest in the State Government, in the light of section 57 of the Land Revenue Code. The respondents have further stated that no person is entitled to mortgage, sale, gift the land which has been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act without previous sanction of the State Government. The State has further stated that the petitioners have entered into various agreements without permission of the State Government and by taking action as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Land Acquisition Rules, 1963 they have taken action against the Company. The State has further stated that the petitioners have entered into various agreements without permission of the State Government and by taking action as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Land Acquisition Rules, 1963 they have taken action against the Company. However, the respondents State in paragraph 6 of the return has admitted that the petitioner Company has paid compensation to the land owners and thereafter the petitioner Company was placed in possession, however, it was acquired for the purpose of establishment of factory. It has been further stated that by covenant dated 7.10.1948 all the Princely State merged into the Union which was known as Madhya Bharat Union and on 19.7.1948 the State of Madhya Pradesh acceded to the domain of India and on 24.11.1949 the Raj Pramukh of Madhya Bharat issued a proclamation accepting the provisions of the Constitution of India and on 26.1.1950 the Constitution of India came into force and the United State of Gwalior, Indore and Malwa became part of Part – B State of Madhya Bharat. The Princely State of Indore became part of Madhya Bharat Union and the Madhya Bharat Union merged into the domain of India. The Indore Land Acquisition Act, 1919 stood repealed and the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 came into force in respect of the area in question. It has been stated that Part – 7 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 deals with acquisition of land for Companies and the rules framed in that regard are known as Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963. 8. The contention of the respondent State is that by virtue of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 the respondent – Collector is competent to take possession of the land as the Company was not using the land for the purpose it was acquired and the land should be reverted back to the Government. The respondent State by taking shelter of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963, as stated in the return, that they have rightly passed the impugned order in respect of the land in question, as the purpose for which the acquisition was made, stood frustrated. The respondent State by taking shelter of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963, as stated in the return, that they have rightly passed the impugned order in respect of the land in question, as the purpose for which the acquisition was made, stood frustrated. It has also been stated that as the Company has sold the land to certain other individuals and has deviated from the purpose for which the land was acquired, the respondents have rightly passed the impugned order and no case for interference is made out in the matter. Apart from stating the aforesaid, it has been prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 10. In the present case, the undisputed facts are the petitioner No.1 – Company is registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The Government of His Highness the Maharaja Holkar in the light of the recommendations of the Commerce Minister dated 26.10.1944 read with the Opinion of the Cabinet dated 13.11.1944 was pleased to accept the offer for establishment of a Company for the purpose of setting up an industry. The petitioner Company made efforts for purchasing land from various land owners and pursuant to the order passed by the Holkar State, on 10.2.1946 the Holkar State issued a Notification under section 4 of the Indore Land Acquisition Act, 1919 for acquiring 41.3 acres of land and thereafter Notification was issued on 14.2.1946 under section 6 of the Indore Land Acquisition Act, 1919. Again a Notification was issued on 24.3.1946 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of 1.10 acres and a Notification under section 6 was issued in respect of the aforesaid land on 2.4.1946. The petitioner, as stated, paid the price of the land to the land owners directly and the petitioner was placed in possession of the land in question. The land vested absolutely in the petitioner Company and the petitioner Company is also in exclusive possession of the land. 11. That in 1956 the Railways acquired 2.3 acres of the petitioner's land and as the petitioner is the title holder of the property and is recorded as Bhumiswami, was paid compensation by the Government. The land vested absolutely in the petitioner Company and the petitioner Company is also in exclusive possession of the land. 11. That in 1956 the Railways acquired 2.3 acres of the petitioner's land and as the petitioner is the title holder of the property and is recorded as Bhumiswami, was paid compensation by the Government. The petitioner Company was involved in the production of Vegetable Ghee and development of other allied activities, however, since 2003 the petitioner Company started running into losses and finally a Reference was registered with the BIFR while all this was going on, the creditors of the petitioner Company, most of them were Banks, started action under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the petitioner Company in order to pay liabilities of the Bank, borrowed funds from the Asset Reconstruction Company and paid off the liabilities of various Banks as well as Asset Reconstruction Company. Three sale deeds were executed and one lease was executed in favour of third parties. Complaint was made against the petitioner Company by one Dr. Manohar Dalal, Advocate. 12. The facts further reveals that the petitioner Company being exclusive title holder of the property is paying property tax in respect of the Company's building and factory to the Indore Municipal Corporation, Indore. The petitioner Company applied to the Collector, Indore for issuance of No Objection Certificate, as the Company was intending to sell part of the land to clear the dues. As the land is Industrial/Commercial an opinion was sought from the Tahsildar Nazul. The Tahsildar Nazul submitted report on 8.11.2012 and a No Objection Certificate was also granted from the Nazul Department on 4.12.2012 informing the petitioner as to why they want a No Objection Certificate. The petitioner Company submitted a reply stating that they want to develop the land as per the Master Plan and a Map has to be sanctioned from the Town and Country Planning Department, hence, No Objection certificate is required from the Tahsildar Nazul. On 16.8.2013 the Tahsildar Nazul submitted a report that the petitioner Company is a Bhumiswami and a small portion of the land has been sold to certain persons name. Name of the buyers have been mutated in the revenue records on 2.4.2012. On 16.8.2013 the Tahsildar Nazul submitted a report that the petitioner Company is a Bhumiswami and a small portion of the land has been sold to certain persons name. Name of the buyers have been mutated in the revenue records on 2.4.2012. Grievance of the petitioner Company started on 2.8.2014 when the Mutation Officer has suo motu cancelled the mutation in respect of the buyers and the buyers have preferred a revision which is pending before the Board of Revenue. 13. On 31.10.2014, the Collector, Indore has directed the District Registrar not to register any document in respect of the land belonging to the petitioner Company. The petitioner Company submitted letters to the Collector demanding certain documents and submitted a reply also to the Collector and based upon the complaint submitted by Dr. Manohar Dalal, Advocate, the Collector, Indore has passed an order dated 2.12.2014 taking possession of the land admeasuring 41.38 acres. The order passed by the Collector was challenged by the Company by filing a writ petition i.e., Writ Petition No. 8953/2014 and this Court has set aside the order passed by the Collector and the Collector was directed to pass a fresh order after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Collector has passed a fresh order on 9.3.2015 and the petitioner Company has again preferred a writ petition i.e., Writ Petition No.1748/2015 which was allowed again directing the Collector to pass a fresh order. The Collector has again passed an order on 1/4/2015. The Collector has passed the impugned order by taking shelter of section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and of Revenue Book Circulars Part – I, No.4. 14. Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, reads as follows : 16. Power to take possession.- When the Collector has made an award under section 11, he may take possession of the land, which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. 15. This Court has carefully gone through section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act is not at all applicable in the circumstances of the case. It only provides that when a Collector passed an award under section 11, he can take possession of the land and the same vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act is not at all applicable in the circumstances of the case. It only provides that when a Collector passed an award under section 11, he can take possession of the land and the same vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. In the present case, no such award has been passed pursuant to which the Collector is taking possession of the land and, therefore, section 16 has got no application in the facts and circumstances of the case. A title holder of the property who is recorded as Bhumiswami, is being thrown out of his property and is deprived of his constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India without there being any statutory provision reflected in the impugned order on the basis of which the property can be declared the property of the State Government. Similarly, shelter of the Revenue Book Circular has also been taken by the Collector. Similarly, shelter of the Revenue Book Circular has also been taken by the Collector. Part I, No.4 of the Revenue Book Circulars reads as under : jktLo iqLrd ifji= [k.M Øekad 4 Hkw&vtZu vf/kfu;e ¼Øekad 1 lu~ 1894½ ds varxZr vftZr Hkwfe dh O;oLFkk ftldh vko';drk lkoZtfud iz;kstuksa ds fy, ugha gks vuqns'k & futh :i ls [kjhnh xbZ ;k vfuok;Z vtZu }kjk izkIr dh xbZ vkSj lkoZtfud iz;kstu ds fy, yh xbZ d`f"k dk;Z ;k pkjkxkg dh Hkwfe dh O;oLFkk ds fy, ftldh vc ml iz;kstu ds fy, 'kklu dks vko';drk u gks] fuEufyf[kr fgnk;rsa tkjh dh tkrh gSa & ¼1½ ;fn jkT; 'kklu ds fdlh foHkkx dks ml Hkwfe ;k mlds fdlh Hkkx dh vko';drk ml iz;kstu ds fy, u gks] ftlds fy, og vftZr dh xbZ Fkh] fdUrq fdlh vU; lkoZtfud iz;kstu ds fy, mldh vko';drk gks rks foHkkxk/;{k jkT; 'kklu dh lgefr izkIr dj mDr iz;kstu ds fy, mldk mi;ksx djus dh vuqefr ns ldsxkA foHkkxk/;{k jkT; 'kklu dks viuh fjiksVZ djrs le; mls dyDVj vkSj vk;qDr ¼dfe'uj½ ds tfj;s HkstsxkA ¼2½ ,sls ekeyksa] tgk¡] ml Hkwfe ;k mlds fdlh Hkkx dh fdlh lkoZtfud iz;kstu ds fy, vko';drk u gks] rks og foHkkxk/;{k ftlds dCts esa og Hkwfe gks bl rF; dh lwpuk dyDVj dks nsxk] tks mls jkT; 'kklu ds ,sls vU; foHkkx dks vUrfjr dj ldsxk] ftls lkoZtfud iz;kstu ds fy, mldh vko';drk gksA ¼3½ ;fn ml Hkwfe ;k mlds fdlh Hkkx dh 'kklu ds fdlh foHkkx dks vko';drk u gks] rks dyDVj lacaf/kr LFkkuh; fudk;ksa ls ekywe djsxk] fd D;k mUgsa fdlh lkoZtfud iz;kstu ds fy, ml Hkwfe dh vko';drk gSA ;fn fdlh LFkkuh; fudk; dks Hkwfe dh vko';drk gks vkSj og 'kklu }kjk Hkqxrku dh xbZ iwjh dhersa nsus ds fy, rS;kj gks rks dyDVj cankscLr vk;qDr ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~ ewY; dk Hkqxrku fd;s tkus ij fudk; dks mlds varj.k dh O;oLFkk djsxk c'krsZ og ml fudk; dh vko';drk dks okLrfod le>rk gksA ¼4½ Åij nh xbZ fgnk;rsa ¼1½ ¼2½ ;k ¼3½ ds varxZr u vkus okys ekeyksa esa og Hkwfe mu O;fDr;ksa dks ftuls og vftZr dh xbZ Fkh ;k ;fn irk py lds rks muds okfjlksa dks nsus dk izLrko djs] c'krZs os ml le; ykxw fof/k ds varxZr vfrfjDr {ks= /kkj.k dj ldus ds gdnkj gksaA ¼5½ ftl ewY; ij dyDVj Hkwfe nsuk izLrkfor djs og ewyr% mlds fy, fn, x;s eqvkots dh jde ds cjkcj gksxk] ftlesa ls ;fn Hkw&vtZu vfuok;Z gqvk gks rks vfuok;Z Hkw&vtZu dh 15 izfr'kr jde de dj nh tk,xhA ;fn vko';d gks rks Hkwfe jkT; 'kklu ds dCts esa jgus ds nkSjku d`f"k ;k pjkbZ ds iz;kstu ds fy, Hkwfe dh mi;qDrrk esa gksus okys gkl ds dkj.k ;g ewY; ?kVk;k tk ldsxk] fdUrq ml vof/k esa cktkj ewY; esa gqbZ o`f) ds dkj.k] uhps nh xbZ fLFkfr dks NksM+ ewY;] c<+k;k ugha tkuk pkfg,A ¼6½ os Hkw&[k.M tks vius vkdkj ;k Lo:i ds dkj.k lehi dh Hkwfe ds èkkj.kkfèkdkfj;ksa ;k ekS:lh dk'rdkjksa ds vfrfjDr fdlh vU; ds fy, vuqi;ksxh gks] igys ,sls /kkj.kkf/kdkfj;ksa ;k ekS:lh dk'rdkjksa dks nsuk izLrkfor fd;k tkuk pkfg, Hkys gh fgnk;e Ø-¼4½ ds varxZr mUgsa igys fn, tkus dk gd izkIr gks] fdUrq ,sls ekeys esa cktkj ewY; ek¡xus esa dksbZ vkifÙk ugha gS] ;|fi fudV ds /kkj.kkf/kdkfj;ksa ;k ekS:lh dk'rdkj }kjk leqfpr dher yxk, tkus ij mls ckgjh O;fDr dh vis{kk izkFkfedrk nh tkuh pkfg,A ¼7½ dyDVj] fuLlansg Hkwfe dks ykxr ewY; ij nsus ds lkekU; fu;e dks ykxw djus ds vius foosd ij fuHkZj gksxk vkSj mldk mi;ksx djsxkA fo'ks"k ekeys lkeus vk ldrs gSa vkSj viokn Hkh U;k;ksfpr gksaxs] mnkgj.kkFkZ tcfd igys gdnkj O;fDr ewy Hkw&/kkjh ds nwj ds oa'kt ;k laca/kh gks] ;k tc Hkwfe dk cktkj ewY; bruk vf/kd c<+ tk;s fd ekeys dks lkekU; fu;eksa ds ckgj vU; rjhds ls fuiVk;k tkuk vko';d gksA ¼8½ ;fn fgnk;r Ø-¼4½ vkSj ¼6½ esa mYysf[kr O;fDr izLrko Lohdkj u djsa rks og Hkwfe 'kklu dk vuqeksnu izkIr djus ds ckn bl ifji= dh dafMdk 4 ds micU/kksa ds v/khu tSlk Hkh mfpr izrhr gks] ;k uhykeh }kjk csph tk ldsxh ;k vU; izdkj ls mldh O;oLFkk dh tk ldsxhA** 16. The aforesaid Revenue Book Circulars has again got no application in the present case. 17. In the case of Ramcharan and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, reported in 1997 RN 141, it has been held that the Revenue Book Circulars does not have the force of law, and it is only meant for guidance of the Revenue Authorities. The impugned order has been passed without there being any statutory provision/authority. 18. In the case of Eshugbayi Eleke v. Officer, reported in AIR 1931 Privy Council 248, it has been held by the Privy Council that all executive actions must be founded on statutory authority and the petitioner in the present case is in possession of the land since 1946 as Bhumiswami. He cannot be thrown out of his property by an executive action. The petitioner is not guilty of transgression of the law of the land in the matter. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent State that the land in question was acquired by the Holkar State for establishment of industry with intention to give employment and development of the city by invoking urgency clause and as the purpose has come to an end and as the land is being sold by the land owners, the State Government is well within its jurisdiction to initiate proceedings and to take back the possession of the land under the provisions of Revenue Book Circulars. Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon section 44 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and section 99 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 19. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the petitioner Company is in peaceful and settled possession of the land in question right from 1946. The Company is the Bhumiswami. The petitioner's title was recorded by the State Government in the Revenue Records and the same is fortified by the fact that in 1956 part of the land was acquired by the State Government for the purposes of construction of Railway Line and the petitioner being the land owner was paid compensation. The Company is the Bhumiswami. The petitioner's title was recorded by the State Government in the Revenue Records and the same is fortified by the fact that in 1956 part of the land was acquired by the State Government for the purposes of construction of Railway Line and the petitioner being the land owner was paid compensation. The petitioner Company is being deprived of its property by passing the impugned order and the respondent State has not been able to point out any statutory provision of law which empowers the Collector to pass the impugned order and to dispossess the petitioner Company. 20. In the case of Eshugbayi Eleke (supra), the Privy Council has held as under : Their Lordships are satisfied that the opinion which has prevailed that the Courts cannot investigate the whole of the necessary conditions is erroneous. The Governor acting under the Ordinance acts solely under executive powers, and in no sense as a Court. As the executive he can only act in pursuance of the powers given to him by law. In accordance with British jurisprudence no member of the executive can interfere with the liberty or property of a British subject except on the condition that he can support the legality of his action; before a Court of justice. And it is the tradition of British justice that judges should not shrink from deciding such issues in the face of the executive. The analogy of the powers of the English Home Secretary to deport aliens was invoked in this case. The analogy seems very close. Their Lordships entertain no doubt that under the legislation in question, if the Home Secretary deported a British subject in the belief that he was an alien, the subject would have the right to question the validity of any detention under such order by proceedings in habeas corpus, and that it would be the duty of the Courts to investigate the issue of alien or not. The case of Rex v. Governor of Brixton Prison ([1916]2 K.B. 742)], turned first on the question whether the regulation under which the order was made was ultra vires, which was a question of law. The case of Rex v. Governor of Brixton Prison ([1916]2 K.B. 742)], turned first on the question whether the regulation under which the order was made was ultra vires, which was a question of law. It further turned on the question whether the Secretary of State was abusing the powers given to him under the order by using them to deport a mere criminal, who it was suggested, was no danger to the State. 21. In the case of Bidi Supply Co. v. Union of India, reported in ( AIR 1956 SC 479 ), the apex Court has held as under : “As said by Lord Atkin in Eshugbai Eleko's case the executive can only act in pursuance of the powers given to it by law and it cannot interfere with the liberty, property and rights of the subject except on the condition that it can support the legality of its action before the Court”. 22. In the case of State of U.P. v. Maharaja Dharmander Pratap Singh, reported in ( AIR 1989 SC 997 ), the apex Court has held as under : “Possession can be resumed by Government only in a manner known to or recognised by law. It cannot resume possession otherwise than in accordance with law. Government is, accordingly prohibited from taking possession otherwise than in due course of law”. 23. In the light of the aforesaid judgments, the only statutory provision relied upon in the impugned order is section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act. The provision of is not at all attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The aforesaid provision is attracted only when the land of a person is acquired by passing an award and after acquisition, possession of the acquired land is taken and, therefore, the aforesaid provision does not empower the State Government to dispossess a title holder from his property against whom no such award has been passed and who has received the possession after due acquisition and has paid compensation to the land owners directly. It is a well settled proposition of law that validity of an order has to be judged only on the basis of the contents of the order and not by any reason supplemented in the return/affidavits filed by the State in support of the order. 24. It is a well settled proposition of law that validity of an order has to be judged only on the basis of the contents of the order and not by any reason supplemented in the return/affidavits filed by the State in support of the order. 24. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Collector was jurisdictionally incompetent to pass the impugned order by taking shelter of section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Revenue Book Circulars – Part – I, No.4 does not confer a power upon the Collector to forcibly dispossess the petitioner who is a title holder of the property and who is in settled possession as lawful owner since pre-independence. Not only this, the provision relied upon under the M.P. Land Revenue Code are not at all applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. In fact, depriving the petitioner of its property by passing an executive order is contrary to the well settled principles of law and, therefore, as the petitioner Company is title holder of the property, owner of the property and recorded as Bhumiswami, is entitled to possess the property and to utilise the property. The impugned order is bad in law and is hereby quashed. 25. With the aforesaid, the present writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.