Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. To appreciate the contentions advanced on behalf of the parties, it would be useful to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act, Section 24(a) of the Act defines a colonizer and illegal colonizer as follows :

"(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 setting down on those plots by constructing residential or non-residential or composite accommodation and the expression "establishment of colony", "colonization", "illegal colonizer" and "illegal colonization" shall be construed accordingly :

... ... ... ..."
It is thus clear that illegal colonization would mean under the Act colonization without obtaining prior permission from the authorities, as required by the provisions of the various Acts referred to in Clause (a) of Section 24 of the Act.

5. Now the case of the petitioners is that sanction of the Municipal Council, Neemuch under the provisions of Section 182 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 for developing the land in question into a colony, was duly obtained in the year 1969, when the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 had not come into force. It is not disputed that the provisions of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 and the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 are not attracted in the instant case. It is also not disputed that sanction, as required by Section 182 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 had been obtained by petitioner No. 1 in the year 1969. It is thus clear that petitioner No. 1 had "divided" the land in question "into plots" in the year 1969; that such division was with the prior permission of the Municipal Council and it did not, therefore, amount to illegal colonization, as contemplated by Clause (a) of Section 24 of the Act. The provisions of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 being inapplicable in the instant case, the question of illegal diversion does not arise. Therefore, the land in question could not be held to be an "area of illegal diversion or 'colonization". Unless the land, the respect of which action is proposed to be taken under Section 31(1)(b) of the Act is an area of illegal diversion or illegal colonization, the Collector has no jurisdiction to take action under Section 31(1)(b) of the Act.

6. It was contended by the learned Government Advocate that Petitioner No. 1 had herself applied for licence under Section 24 of the Act, But merely on the ground that an application was made for obtaining licence under the Act, though such application was not necessary according to law in the case of petitioner No. 1, as she had already developed the land in the year 1969; petitioner No. 1 could not be held guilty of illegal colonization. The main question, that should have been considered by the Collector, was whether the development of land undertaken by petitioner No. 1 was in violation of the provisions of the laws in force referred to in Clause (a) of Section 24 of the Act, at the time when the land was being developed. The Collector failed to appreciate that division of land into plots and the sale of all these plots need not be simultaneous and that if after division of land into plots after obtaining permission for such division from the authorities, certain plots were being sold by petitioner No. 1, she could not be held guilty of illegal colonization. The action taken by the Collector under Section 31(1)(b) of the Act, cannot be, therefore, sustained in law in the circumstances of this case.