Rajkumar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 14053 MP

                                                     1
                          IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                             AT JABALPUR
                                                  BEFORE
                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
                                          ON THE 28 th OF AUGUST, 2023
                                         WRIT PETITION No. 17038 of 2023

                         BETWEEN:-
                         RAJKUMAR SINGH S/O LATE VIRENDRA SINGH, AGED
                         ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ENTREPRENUER,
                         KARNIKA VIHAR, KHALESAR NAKA, CHAPAHA ROAD,
                         UMARIA DIST.UMARIA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                           .....PETITIONER
                         (BY SHRI VIBHUDHENDRA MISHRA - ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                               SECRETARY    URBAN    ADMINISTRATION
                               MANTRALAYA VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.    COLLECTOR U M A R I YA DISTRICT   UMARIYA
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         3.    EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WATER RESOURCE
                               D EPARTM EN T DISTRICT UMARIYA (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                         4.    CHIEF MUNICIPAL OFFICER NAGAR PALIKA
                               PARISHAD    UMARIYA DISTRICT UMARIYA
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         5.    DEPUTY DIRECTOR NAGAR TATHA GRAM
                               NIVESH JILA SHAHDOL / UMARIYA SHAHDOL
                               DIVISION SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         6.    PARIYOJNA ADHIKARI JILA SHAHKARI VIKAS
                               AB HI KAR AN DISTRICT UMARIYA (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                         7.    MADHYA PRADESH BHUSAMPADA VINIYAMAK
                               PRADHIKARAN ARERA HILLS BHOPAL (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHMA
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 9/1/2023
4:47:51 PM
                                                             2
                         8.    M/S KABEER BUILDCON THROUGH PROPRIETOR
                               CHANDRA PRAKASH AHUJA KHALESAR TAHSIL
                               BANDHAVGARH DISTRICT UMARIYA (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                         (BY SHRI AKASH CHOUDHARY - ADVOCATE)
                         (BY SHRI PUNIT SHROTI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                               This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                         following:
                                                             ORDER

Heard on the question of admission.

This petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India challenging the order dated 24/01/2023 (Annexure-P-1) whereby respondent no.2-Collector,

Umaria has granted permission in favour of respondent no.8 for developing the colony. He submits that said permission is illegal and contrary to various provisions of law, therefore, same may be set-aside.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no.8 has purchased the land from one Gyan Singh Gond, who sought permission from Collector for selling the land under the provision of Section 165(6) of M.P.Land Revenue Code, 1959 as Gyan Singh belongs to Schedule Tribe community and without the permission of Collector, he cannot sell the land. He submits that permission granted by the Collector was conditional. According to him, Collector Umaria permitted the respondent no.8 to purchase the land at prevailing market price of land which came to Rs.38,95,299/- or more paid to the seller whichever is higher. Furthermore, he submits that petitioner has also filed copy of sale-deed to demonstrate that instead of paying proper consideration respondent no.8 got the sale-deed executed from the owner of the land only after paying Rs.8,50,000/-. He has also submitted that the land even otherwise cannot be

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 9/1/2023 4:47:51 PM

diverted within the period of 10 years from the date of purchase. Additionally, it is highlighted that although the prescribed diversion fee in the area where land situate is 8% but it has been paid only 5.5%. Shri Mishra submits that considering these factors respondent no.8 should be restrained to develop the colony.

To substantiate his submission, he has placed reliance upon a judgment reported in 1991(4) SCC 54 ( Bangalore Medical Trust Vs. B.S.Muddappa and others) in which the Supreme Court has observed that "restricted meaning of aggrieved person and narrow outlook of specific injury has yielded in favour of broad and wide construction in wake of Public Interest Litigation". The Supreme Court has further observed that "if cause of action either for individual or community in general to approach by way of writ petition and the authorities cannot be permitted to seek shelter under cover of technicalities of locus standi nor they can be heard to plead for restrain in exercise of discretion as grave issues of public concern outweigh such considerations." He has also placed reliance upon a judgment reported in 1981(1) SCC 568 (Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union(Regd), Sindri and others Vs. Union of India & others), in which the Supreme Court has observed that "it may become necessary in the changing awareness of legal rights and social obligations to take a broader view of the question of locus to initiate a proceeding, be it under

Article 226 or under Article 32 of Constitution of India."

On the contrary, Shri Akash Choudhary, counsel for respondent no.8 has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of petition mainly on the ground that the petitioner has no locus to challenge the permission granted in favour of respondent no.8 and also the sale-deed executed by the land owner namely Gyan Singh Gond. He asserts that land owner has never raised any Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 9/1/2023 4:47:51 PM

objection about the sale consideration. In fact, he has sworn an affidavit affirming that in view of the relationship and help provided by respondent no.8, he received proper consideration of the sale. Shri Choudhary further points out that stamp duty was paid on a government rate and as such State has not suffered any pecuniary loss.

According to Shri Choudhary, the petitioner as per the pleading made in the petition has failed to demonstrate as to what locus he has to challenge the permission granted by the Collector. He has drawn attention of this Court towards the pleading wherein it is stated by the petitioner that he is a vigilant resident of area and if colony is developed it will make inconvenience to the prospective resident of proposed colony. However, he contends that the petitioner is concerned for those who are not residing in the colony and it is also not clear that who would be the prospective resident. He asserts that colony is being developed in a very huge area consisting of land of several khasra numbers and total area is 6.664 hectare whereas the land for which permission has been granted by the Collector is a very small portion of land belonging to Khasra no.346/2 area measuring 0.174 hectare. According to Shri Choudhary, the present petitioner is only blackmailing the respondent no.8 and he has no interest whether permission is granted rightly or wrongly, but he wants to extract the money and as such filed this petition. He prays for dismissal of this petition on the ground of maintainability.

Shri Choudhary additionally highlights that this Court in Maa Sharda Indane Vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2019 SCC online MP 6073 has already considered the fact that who can file a petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India. He submits that petitioner's legal right is not being

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 9/1/2023 4:47:51 PM

affected or also not violated any legally protected interest. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate as to what locus he has to file this petition. Shri Choudhary submits that although if petitioner is raising his voice for protecting the interest of public or for the persons who are not before the Court, he may file Public Interest Litigation but not petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India asking Certiorari that too for an order which has been passed in favour of respondent no.8. He has also relied upon an order passed in Jas Bhai Moti Bhai Desai Vs. Rosahn Kumar, 1976(1) SCC 671, wherein the Supreme Court has observed that who can be an aggrieved person seeking a Writ of Certiorari. He submits that as per the observation made by the Supreme Court the petitioner does not fall within the definition of an aggrieved person and as such he cannot file a petition seeking writ of Certiorari.

Shri Choudhary further submits that cases on which the petitioner is placing reliance observation made by the Supreme Court has been passed in Public Interest Litigation and even otherwise according to Shri Choudhary no legal right is being affected and violated in the presence case of the petitioner. He further submits that nothing illegal has been done and infact diversion is not required for the reason as the provision of diversion has been repealed in the year 2018.

I have heard the submissions made by counsel for parties and perused the record.

It is evident from the record that Collector had granted permission in favour of an individual for selling his land with certain conditions and if any condition imposed in the said permission is not fulfilled or individual is suffered any loss, he can come forward and raise grievance but on the contrary in the present case sufferer has filed an affidavit saying that he has not suffered any Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 9/1/2023 4:47:51 PM

loss and whatever amount he had received from the respondent no.8 against the sale made by him was satisfactory and he is happy with the same. It is also not a case in which stamp duty was paid on a lower price but it has been paid on the actual value of the land determined by the Collector and as such Government has also not suffered any loss. According to Rule 15 of Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Niyam, 2012 nothing illegal has been committed by the authority. It is not a case in which the right of public is being affected. Prima facie there is no apparent illegality reflects in the matter. The land which is transferred and said transfer is criticized relate to very small portion of total land which is being used to develop the copy. Although, if petitioner has any grievance he may raise objection before the authority and if the same is done, the authority can consider it but petition at the instance of an individual who is not satisfied and happy with the development of colony, cannot be entertained. The Public Interest Litigation raising grievance or protecting the interest of public can be filed but a petition by an individual in the

nature of relief which is being claimed does not relate with public interest but relate to an individual.

The petition in my opinion is not maintainable as petitioner does not have any locus to raise the grievance. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE sushma

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 9/1/2023 4:47:51 PM