Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narendra Singh Wadhwa vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 April, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15727
1 WP-14032-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 1 st OF APRIL, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 14032 of 2012
NARENDRA SINGH WADHWA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Devendra Kumar Tripathi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ved Prakash Tiwari - Government Advocate for the respondents-State.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition claiming following reliefs:-
"7.1 Allow the petition and quash / set aside the order dated 29.05.2012 passed in the Revenue case No.10-A/20(4) year 90-91 (Narendra Singh Wadhwa Vs. State of M.P.) and direct the respondents to proceed further in accordance with the order dated 18.10.1995 passed by the respondent No.2.
7.2 Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to produce the entire original record pertaining to the Revenue case No.10-A/20(4) year 90-91 (Narendra Singh Wadhwa Vs. State of M.P.).
7.3 Issue any other writ or writs order or orders direction or directions that this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and also award the cost of this Signature Not Verified Signed by: PUSHPENDRA PATEL Signing time: 4/4/2025 7:01:26 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15727
2 WP-14032-2012 petition."
2. Petitioner's contention is that he had moved an application before the Collector, Damoh in the year 1990-91 in revenue case No.10-A/20(4) year 90-91, whereby he had made a prayer to the Collector, Damoh that since he has been given a colonizer licence as contained in Annexure P-1 dated 20.06.1990 under the provisions of Section 24 of the Madhya Pradesh Vinirdishta Bhrashta Acharan Nivaran Adhiniyam, 1982 (for brevity "Act of 1982"), but the plot allottees/plot holders are not paying the development charges, therefore, Collector should show indulgence and issue appropriate notices to them.
3. Referring to Annexure P-4 and P-5, it is informed that such notices were actually issued to the plot holders and, thereafter, Sub Divisional Officer passed the impugned order dated 29.05.2012 without having any authority.
4. This Court wanted to know from Shri Devendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner that how Sections 24 and 31 which have since been omitted vide M.P. Act 6 of 1998 w.e.f. 13.05.1998, can help the petitioner in seeking direction to the plot allottees to pay the development charges?
5. Shri Devendra Kumar Tripathi instead of answering this question directly submits that Sub Divisional Officer had no authority to pass the impugned order and, therefore, the impugned order being illegal, needs to be set aside.
6. Section 24 of the Act of 1982 as it stood prior to amendment, reads as under:-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PUSHPENDRA PATEL Signing time: 4/4/2025 7:01:26 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15727 3 WP-14032-2012 "24. Definitions. - In this chapter, the expressions,-
(a) "a colonizer" means a person who, in a local area, after taking no objection certificate or prior permission in writing, as the case may be,-
(i) under section 172 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (No.20 of 1959),
(ii) under the Urban Land, (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (No.33 of 1976),
(iii) under the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (No.37 of 1961),
(iv) under the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (No.23 of 1956),
(v) under the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (No.23 of 1973) from the respective authority competent to grant the same or from a Nazul authority in case the land is situated in a Nazul area, divides the land into plots, with or without developing the area transfers or agrees to transfer them gradually or all at a time, to persons desirous of settling down on those plots by constructing residential or non-residential or composite accommodation and the expression "establishment of colony", "colonizer" "illegal colonizer" and "illegal colonization" shall be constructed accordingly.
Provided that no person shall undertake the establishment of Signature Not Verified Signed by: PUSHPENDRA PATEL Signing time: 4/4/2025 7:01:26 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15727 4 WP-14032-2012 colony unless he on payment of such fee as may be prescribed for registration of colonizers obtains a licence of colonization from the Collector of revenue district in which the land is situated:
Provided further that, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 172 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (No.20 of 1959) more ommission to grant sanction for diversion of land within the period specified therein shall not amount to grant of sanction for diversion for the purpose of this Chapter.
(b) "local area" means an area comprised within the limits of a Municipal Corporation a Municipality class I, urban agglomeration or a nazul area comprised in such limits and shall include a planning area notified under section 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (No.23 of 1973), within or appurtenant to such limits;
(c) "plot holder" means a person who in a local area holds a plot under a deed of transfer or agreement of transfer from a colonizer;
(d) "Urban agglomeration" shall have the same meanings as is assigned to it in clause (a) of section 2 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (No.33 of 1976)."
7. Then, Sections 25 and 26 deals with illegal diversion of land and offence of illegal colonization. Section 27 deals with punishment for illegal diversion and illegal colonization. Section 28 deals with offence for illegal Signature Not Verified Signed by: PUSHPENDRA PATEL Signing time: 4/4/2025 7:01:26 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15727 5 WP-14032-2012 construction and Section 29 deals with punishment for illegal construction. Section 30 deals with punishment for abatement of the offence of illegal construction and Section 31 deals with transfer of plots in an area of illegal diversion or illegal colonization to be void. Section 31 reads as under:-
"31. Transfer of plots in an area of illegal diversion or illegal colonization to be void - (1) (a) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (No.20 of 1959) transfer or agreement of transfer of plots made by a colonizer in an area of illegal diversion or illegal colonization shall be void;
(b) The Collector may after show cause notice to the parties take over the management of the land, cause the area to be planned and developed and shall thereafter allot the land preferentially amongst the plot holders in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed;
(c) The allottee shall on fulfillment of the conditions be deemed to be a valid transferee of the plot from colonizer, and the powers of the Collector as manager of the plot shall come to an end.
(2) The provisions of this section shall have retrospective effect on all transactions where constructions on the area of illegal diversion or illegal colonization had not commenced on the 8th September, 1982."Signature Not Verified Signed by: PUSHPENDRA PATEL Signing time: 4/4/2025 7:01:26 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15727 6 WP-14032-2012
8. Thus, it is evident that nowhere there is any provision under the Act of 1982 authorizing the developer to approach the Collector to seek a direction that plot allottees be directed to pay the development charges. The provisions contained in Chapter VIII of the Act of 1982 starting from Sections 24 to 32 deals with a different aspect of problem that is of illegal construction, illegal colonization and illegal development. It does not say that if the plot holders fail to pay the development charges in time, then the remedy to a developer shall be under this Act.
9. In view of such facts, when examined then petitioner's application as was filed before the Collector was misplaced and there being no provision under the law for issuance of notices to the plot holders for non payment of development charges, petitioner's remedy would have been somewhere else. When tested then impugned approach of the petitioner to the Collector cannot be said to be sustainable in the eyes of law and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer cannot be faulted with.
10. In view of above, petition fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE pp Signature Not Verified Signed by: PUSHPENDRA PATEL Signing time: 4/4/2025 7:01:26 PM