Madhya Pradesh High Court
Janki Grah Nirman Co-Operative Housing ... vs Collector, Jabalpur on 16 December, 1986
Equivalent citations: (1987) MPLJ 456, AIR 1987 MADHYA PRADESH 271, (1987) JAB LJ 638 (1987) MPLJ 456
JUDGMENT C.P. Sen, J.
1. This is a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the notice of the Collector, Jabalpur DA 27-5-1986/29-5-1986/5-8-1986 whereby the coloniser's licence of the petitioner has been suspended and a show cause notice given for cancellation of the licence on the ground of suppression of the fact that the petitioner had not disclosed in his application that the disputed land was exempted from Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 for agricultural purposes only and it was mentioned therein that in case the land is to be used for any other purpose, the provisions of the Act would be attracted if and when colonisation is taken on hand and no such sanction was obtained.
2. The petitioner is a registered Cooperative Housing Society registered under the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The facts not in dispute are that the petitioner purchased Kh. No. 185/2 situate in village Laxmipur, tahsil and district Jabalpur by registered sale deed D/- 27-5-1983 from Jiyalal and others; Revenue Case No. 5 A/90(B-9)/79-80 was pending before the Competent Authority constituted under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 in which the Competent Authority granted exemption from the provisions of Urban Ceiling Act; the petitioner then moved an application before the Additional Collector for grant of coloniser's licence under Section 24 M.P-Vinirdishta Bhrashta Acharan Nivaran Adhiniyam, 1982, (hereinafter referred as to the 'Adhiniyam') in the prescribed form as required under Rule 3 M.P. Vinirdishta Bhrashta Acharan Nivaran (Coloniyon Ka Registrikaran Tatha Vikas) Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'); the petitioner got the above land diverted from agricultural purposes to non-agricultural purposes and a certificate to that effect was enclosed; the Additional Collector called for a report from the Competent Authority under the Urban Ceiling Act and also from the S.D.O., District Nazul Officer, Town and Country planning Department, Jabalpur and Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur, the Competent Authority reported that the land shown as agricultural land in the Master Plan has been exempted from the provisions of the Urban Ceiling Act but the provisions of the Act would be attracted if and when the development of colonisation is taken in hand; the Additional Collector after making elaborate enquiry as required under Rule 4 granted the colonisation licence in Form II prescribed under Rule 5 on 27-2-1984. Therefore, the Additional Collector was aware while granting the licence that the exemption under the Urban Ceiling Act was in respect of agricultural land and in case of diversion the land would come under the Urban Ceiling Act; thereafter the petitioner applied in Form IV under Rule 10 for establishment of a colony on the disputed land giving all necessary information and also enclosed a letter of the Competent Authority to the Joint Director appointed under the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 stating that the land purchased by the petitioner-Society has already been exempted from the provisions of the Urban Ceiling Act; the petitioner also enclosed along with the application a copy of the licence issued under Rule 5, copy of the sale deed and no-objection certificates from the Jabalpur Development Authority, Municipal Corporation and the Town and Country Planning Department; the District Nazul Officer also gave a detailed report; the Collector after considering all the relevant material produced before him, granted permission for development of the Colony on 30-10-1984; after permission for development of the colony was granted, the , petitioner undertook construction of roads, digging of tube-well, laying of a network of pipelines, installation of electric poles for providing electricity to the members of the society, making available telephone facility, construction of 34 houses and park; the petitioner has already spent Rs. 10,68,601.20 for development of the above land and Rs. 10,00,000/- for the construction of houses;
besides, the petitioner has also paid a sum of Rs. 9450A and Rs. 5025/- to the Municipal Corporation for sanctioned plan for the construction which was valid up to 4-4-1987 and therefore the construction work was taken in hand in full speed; however, after about two years, the Collector all of a sudden issued the impugned show cause as to why his colonisation licence be not cancelled and in the meanwhile suspended the licence pending enquiry for suppression of material facts in the application for colonisation licence; the petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice and also filed the present petition and obtained stay so that it could proceed with the construction work already taken in hand.
3. Colonisation Licence was granted on two conditions (i) the society shall get the lay out of the land duly approved from the Town and Country Planning Department under the provisions of the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973; and(ii) the society shall take up the development of the colony when the permission has been obtained after giving requisite information in Form IV prescribed under Rule 10 of the 1982 Rules. It is not disputed that the petitioner has complied with the aforesaid two conditions and thereafter he was permitted under Rule 10 to establish a colony. It is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner has committed breach of any of the above two conditions. Under Rule 8 the Collector can, on his own motion or on information from any source and for reasons to be recorded in writing, may cancel the licence for contravention of any of the terms and conditions or restrictions of the licence; provided, that no licence shall be cancelled unless an opportunity of being heard is given to the licensee. There does not appear to be any provision for suspension of the licence pending enquiry. Whatever that be, the licence can only be cancelled for contravention of any of the terms and conditions or restrictions of the licence. That is not the case here. The show cause notice mentions that the petitioner had suppressed the fact that the exemption was granted under the Urban Ceiling Act of the disputed land as an agricultural land and it was mentioned that in case colonisation is done on the land, the provisions of the Act would be applicable.
The Collector had himself invited the report from the Competent Authority which was submitted on 10-1-1984 while the licence was granted on 27-2-1984. Therefore, it is evident that the Collector was aware while granting the licence that exemption from the Urban Ceiling Act was granted for the disputed land as agricultural land and not for colonisation. Section 19 Urban Ceiling Act provides that subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2), nothing in this Chapter shall apply to any vacant land held by........,.(v) any co-operative society..........
registered or deemed to be registered under any law relating to co-operative societies for: the time being in force. Two provisos to this clause are not applicable to a housing society. In his application for establishment of a colony under Rule 10, the petitioner enclosed a letter from the Competent Authority under the Urban Celling Act to the Joint Director: appointed under the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 stating therein that the land purchased by the petitioner-Society is exempted from the provisions of the Urban Ceiling Act. It is interesting to note that the! Collector purported to have issued the show: cause notice D/-27-5-1986/29-5-1986/5-8-1986 on the report DA 8-7-1986 about suppression of material facts, while the notice is of earlier date. The Collector, otherwise, is also estopped from cancelling the colonisation licence after a period of two, years when the colony has been developed and construction of 25 houses are nearing completion and the petitioner having spent over Rs. 20 lakhs already. The Collector; knowing full facts had given the colonisation licence and permitted establishment of the colony. Now it is not open to him to say after two years that there was suppression of material facts by the petitioner. The society having got the licence and permission having been granted for establishment of a colony and' having incurred huge expenses, the principle of promissory (estoppel) would apply and the Collector is estopped from issuing the show cause notice for cancellation of the coloniser's licence and suspending the same pending enquiry. Therefore, the show cause notice and the proposed action are misconceived and are wholly untenable in law.
4. Accordingly the petition is allowed.
The show cause notice DA 27-5-1936/29-5-1986/5-8-1986 and further proceedings in pursuance thereto of the Collector are quashed. There shall be no order as at costs.