Madhya Pradesh High Court
Munna Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 December, 2018
1 WP-13907-2018 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh WP-13907-2018 (MUNNA PATEL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) Jabalpur, Dated : 20-12-2018 Mr. A.K. Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ankit Agrawal, Government Advocate for the State. With the consent of the parties, finally heard. The challenge in this case is mounted to the order dated 18.05.2018, whereby the learned Collector and competent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 [for short "the Act of 1999"] has rejected the application of the petitioner.
The admitted facts between the parties are that WP-16538-2011 (PIL) was filed before this Court which was disposed of on 30.09.2011. In furtherance of the order of this Court passed in PIL, whereby liberty was reserved to prefer a representation, a representation was preferred which was decided by impugned order dated 18.05.2018.
Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the findings given in order dated 18.05.2018 are contradictory and erroneous. On the one hand, learned Collector in para 2 of the order opined that the Collector is the competent authority to exercise the power under Sections 3 & 4 of the Act of 1999 and, on the other hand, declined interference by holding that representation cannot be accepted. Her findings in para 7 shows that the application under Sections 3 & 4 of the Act of 1999 is entertainable by the Collector. Thus, the impugned order may be set aside and matter may be remitted back before the learned Collector by treating the application (Annexure-P/1) as an application under Section 3 & 4 of the Act of 1999.
Mr. Agrawal, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned order.
I have heard the parties at length on this aspect and perused the record. In the opinion of this Court, the argument of Mr. Jain has substance. A conjoint reading of para 2 and para 7 of the impugned order dated 18.05.2018 Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Date: 20/12/2018 15:31:16 2 WP-13907-2018 shows that the learned Collector herself treated the Collector as a competent authority to exercise power under Sections 3 & 4 of the Act of 1999. However, the application was not entertained because in the opinion of learned Collector said application was not preferred under Sections 3 & 4 of the Act of 1999. Indeed, she treated it to be a review application.
Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submited that application dated 19.03.2008 (Annexure-P/1) may be treated to be an application under Sections 3 & 4 of the Act of 1999. In that event, the said application will be maintainable.
Resultatly, order dated 18.05.2018 is set aside. The matter is remitted back before the learned Collector to treat the application (Annexure-P/1) as an application under Sections 3 & 4 of the Act of 1999 and take a fresh decision in accordance with law without getting mechanically influenced by her earlier order dated 18.05.2018 expeditiously preferably within 30 days' from the date of production of copy of this order.
Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
C.C. as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE s@if Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Date: 20/12/2018 15:31:16