Katanga Housing Board Niwasi ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 6117 MP

                                 1
                                                  WP. No.9972/2018




HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT
                AT JABALPUR


Case Number and                      WP No.9972/2018
Parties Name
                               Katanga Housing Board Niwasi
                               Kalyan Sangathan and another
                                            Vs.
                                 State of M.P. & Others

Date of Order              28/09/2021
Bench Constituted          Division Bench:
                           Justice Prakash Shrivastava
                           Justice Satyendra Kumar Singh
Judgment delivered by      Justice Prakash Shrivastava
Whether approved for       No
reporting
Name of counsels for       Shri Devendra Kumar Dixit,
parties                    Advocate for the petitioners.

                           Shri R.K. Verma, Additional
                           A.G. for respondent No.1 & 2.

                           Shri Ajay       Pratap   Singh,
                           Advocate for respondent No.3 &
                           4.

                           Shri Vikram Singh, Advocate for
                           the respondent No.5-U.O.I.
Law laid down                                -
Significant paragraph                        -
numbers

                             ORDER

28.09.2021

Per: Prakash Shrivastava, J.

By this petition, the petitioners have prayed for a direction to settle the dispute with the Ministry of Defence, Government of India in respect of the title of the land in question and grant permission to the members of the petitioner No.1-Society to repair, renovate and reconstruct their houses and restrain the

WP. No.9972/2018

respondents from treating the members of the petitioner No.1- Society as encroachers.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the land in question was transferred by the Government of Madhya Pradesh to the Housing Board, respondent No.3 for construction of houses and allotment of plots. 50 MIG and 9 HIG houses were constructed and after due publication of the advertisement the allotments were made in the year 1980. The construction of the houses was complete in 1984 and the lease agreements were executed in favour of the members of the petitioner No.1-Society who had received the possession and are living in those houses. The leases have been renewed from time to time. The colony has subsequently been transferred to the Cantonment Board and is being maintained by the Cantonment Board. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Military Estate Officer is not granting permission for repair, renovation and reconstruction of the houses, on the contrary, he is issuing notices to the residents to vacate the premises alleging that they are the encroachers on the land. It is pleaded that some of the houses are in dilapidated conditions and they require immediate repair but, the same is not permitted by the respondent No.5. The representations submitted by the petitioners have yielded no result; therefore, they have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

3. The respondent No.1 & 2 have filed their reply taking the stand that the land belongs to the State Government and some dispute had arisen which was settled by the Collector and MEO in the meeting dated 13.11.1980. In W.P. No.2475/1988 filed by Kalyankari Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, the dispute was in respect of 3 acres of land whereas certain directions were

WP. No.9972/2018

issued by this Court by order 29.01.2002 and; thereafter, the said society had filed the civil suit which was decreed, against which FA. No.75/2010 filed by the respondent No.5 is still pending. Further stand of the respondent No.1 & 2 is that the land in question was allotted to the M.P. Housing Board for development of Housing Scheme and the land belongs to State Government.

4. The respondent No.3 & 4 have filed their reply and have raised the plea that out of the entire disputed land, a part of the land was allotted to the respondent M.P. Housing Board for construction of colony and it was agreed that the respondent Board will go ahead with the project pending finalization of the issue of transfer value to be paid by the Central Government/Ministry of Defence or allotment of alternative land to the Ministry of Defence in view of disputed area.

5. The respondent No.5 has filed the reply taking the stand that the land in question alongwith the other land of that area in survey No.53 has been vested with the Government of India as per the entry made in the GLR wherein against the column of the land record, the Government of India has been shown to have all the rights of ownership. Further stand of respondent No.5 is that the land bearing survey No.53 situated in Jabalpur Cantonment is under the management of the D.E.O. but, the same was transferred by the Collector Jabalpur to M.P. Housing Board for implementation of the Housing Scheme presuming the land to be with the State Government. The respondent No.5 has admitted the meeting which was held with the Collector in November, 1980 and the minutes of the meeting dated 13.11.1980. It has been further stated in the reply by the respondent No.5 that since the land is vested with the

WP. No.9972/2018

Government of India, therefore, the permission has been denied to the allottees of the said land and construction has been treated to be unauthorized.

6. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the construction has been raised by the Housing Board after the resolution in the meeting dated 13.11.1980 and the petitioners are bonafide allottees but, now their building reconstruction plans, repair and renovation permissions have been rejected by the respondent No.5 and eviction proceedings are being taken against them. It is further submitted that as per the direction of this Court, a joint meeting of the respondent No.5 authority with the Collector was convened and as per the decision of the Collector, the land belongs to the State Government and that the respondent No.5 is granting selective permission and that the petitioners have registered the lease deed in their favour.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 & 2 has supported the petition by submitting that the land belongs to the State Government and in this regard he has also placed reliance upon the report of the S.D.O. dated 16.06.2021 and has submitted that the respondent No.1 & 2 have no objection if the petitioners carry out the renovation and that the disputed question of fact cannot be decided in this petition.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 & 4 has supported the petition and has also submitted that after construction of the houses by the Housing Board, allotments have been made to the members of the petitioner No.1-Society therefore, they should be allowed to reconstruct and that the Housing Board is paying ground rent to the State Government.

WP. No.9972/2018

9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 has opposed the petition by submitting that it is a military land and the entry in the GLR is final and conclusive and; in terms of the resolution passed in the year 1980, the State was required to give the value of the land which has not been given; therefore, the State cannot claim the title on the land and to settle the issue, a committee of high level officers of the State Government and the Central Government of the Defence Department should be formed so that they can deliberate upon the issue and settle the dispute.

10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that undisputedly, the land in question was allotted to the M.P. Housing Board by the State Government for construction of the houses but the MEO was claiming the land to be of defence department; hence, a meeting of the Collector, Jabalpur and MEO, M.P. Circle was held on 13.11.1980 to settle the dispute between the State Government and the Defence Department. Both the parties had putforth their rival claim. Out of the entire area of 94.59 acre of Katanga quarry, on actual survey, an area of approximately 70 acres was found and out of this land, 7 acres was recorded as revenue land and from this land 2.40 acres was allotted to the Housing Board for construction of MIG/HIG houses. The disputed portion of the land was found to be in Survey No.53 which was not a quarry land. The minutes of the meeting dated 13.11.1980 reflect that it was a dispute between the two governments. In that meeting, it was agreed that the M.P. Housing Board will go ahead with the execution of the housing project on the land in question pending finalization of the issue of transfer value to be paid by the Central Government/Ministry of Defence and/or allotment of the alternative land to Ministry of Defence in lieu

WP. No.9972/2018

of this land. The concluding part of the minutes of the meeting dated 13.11.1980 reads as under:-

"The Collector Jabalpur, however, pointed out that the disputed if any is only between the two Governments and it may not come in the way of execution of the project of public importance already sanctioned. The Chief Minister, M.P. has already laid down the foundation stone for the M.P. HB Scheme, for which a portion of the disputed land has already been handed over by the Collector to the MPHB it was therefore, agreed that the MPHB be permitted to got sheded with the execution of the project on the said land pending finalization of the issue of transfer value to be paid to the Central Govt./Ministry of Defence and/or allottment of alternative land Ministry of Defence in lieu of this area.

The MEO has leased out this land to one Shri Prabhat Singh Gularia for agricultural purposes. The MEO was requested to cancel this lease so that the lease may not raise any objection to the execution of the work on this land for which the MEO has aggrieved."

11. Thereafter, undisputedly, the Housing Board has constructed houses on the basis of the said resolution and the allotment have been made to the members of the Petitioner No.1-Society who have made payments to the Housing Board. The allottees/members of the petitioner No.1-Society are residing in these houses and in course of time, these houses require repair, renovation and reconstruction but the permission is not being granted to them by the respondent No.5. The members of the petitioner No.1-Society are bonafide allottees who have spent their lifetime earnings for getting these houses. The existing dispute is between two governments. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of the dispute between the State Government and the Central Government/Ministry of Defence about the land in question.

WP. No.9972/2018

12. Since the issue of title of land is involved, therefore, this Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction does not deem it proper to enter into the said issue. During the pendency of this petition, an attempt was made at the level of the Collector and the Defence Estate Officer and consequently the SDO has submitted the report dated 16.06.2021 finding the land in question to be of the State Government but this report is not acceptable to the respondent No.5.

13. It is also worth noting that one Kalyakankari Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit raising the similar issue had filed W.P. No.2475/1988 which was disposed of with certain directions and; thereafter, the Society had filed the civil suit and had succeeded therein but the first appeal is pending against the order of the trial Court.

14. In the aforesaid circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the dispute which exists between the State Government and the Central Government/Defence Department should first be attempted to be resolved through amicable settlement by holding the meeting of the high officers of the two Governments and if the same does not yield any positive result then the aggrieved party should be given liberty to approach the civil Court and establish the right but, in the meanwhile, the petitioners cannot be made to suffer for want of renovation, reconstruction permission, etc. as they are living in the houses allotted to them and are suffering for want of those permissions.

15. Hence, we dispose of the present writ petition with the following directions:

(1) That a High Level Committee comprising of following officers is constituted to deliberate upon the issue of

WP. No.9972/2018

ownership of land in question and to reach to an amicable settlement:-

(i) Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh;

(ii) Additional Director General, Land, DGDE;

(iii) Commissioner, M.P. Housing & Infrastructure Development Board and;

(iv) Collector, Jabalpur District. (Secretary)

The Collector, Jabalpur will be the Secretary of the above Committee and he will coordinate and arrange the meeting of the High Level Committee. The said High Level Committee will make every endeavour to settle the dispute within a period of three months from today.

(3) In the meanwhile, the petitioners will not be denied the permission for repair, renovation and reconstruction by respondent No.5 if the same is in accordance with the Building Bye-laws.

(4) In case if no amicable settlement is arrived at, in the meeting of High Level Committee constituted above then it will be open to the aggrieved party to approach the Civil Court and establish its right, title and interest on the land in question.

The petition is accordingly disposed of.

                                     (Prakash Shrivastava)              (Satyendra Kumar Singh)
                                            Judge                               Judge
  YS

Digitally signed by YOGESH KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA Date: 2021.09.28 17:37:27 +05'30'