1 W.P No.608/2001 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR WRIT PETITION NO.608/2001 PETITIONER : KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI Vs. RESPONDENTS : STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS. Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice R.S. Jha. For the petitioner : Shri Saket Agrawal, Advocate. For the respondents : Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Govt. Advocate. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER
(26/06/2012) The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the demand notices dated 24.11.1992 and 21.3.1994 issued by the Superintendent, Land Record, Damoh seeking to recover diversion charges from petitioner Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the provisions of Section 9(3) of the M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam), the provision regarding diversion, etc. are not applicable to the land acquired by the petitioner on transfer, purchase, gift or otherwise or 2 W.P No.608/2001 acquired for the purposes of establishment of a market yard or a sub-market yard and in such circumstances the demand notices, annexures P-2 & P-3, seeking recovery of diversion charges be quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court dated 10.8.1979 passed in M.P No.213/1979 wherein a similar demand notice and assessment of diversion charges made upon a Krishi Upaj Mandi have been quashed in view of the provisions of Section 9(3) of the Adhiniyam. The petitioner has also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Nagar Palika Nigam vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and Others, (2008) 12 SCC 364.wherein the Supreme Court has held that the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti is exempted from paying property tax in view of the provisions of Section 9(3) of the Adhiniyam.
4. The learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State submits that the impugned demand notices have been issued to the petitioner in view of the provisions of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. He, however, does not dispute the statutory position regarding Section 9(3) of 3 W.P No.608/2001 the Adhiniyam or the decision of the Division Bench in this matter.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The provisions of Section 9(3) of the Adhiniyam is to the following effect:- “9(3) Nothing contained in the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (No.20 of 1959), and rules made thereunder in so far as they relate to diversion of land, revision of land revenue consequent on the change in the use of land from agriculture to any other purpose and other matters incidental thereto shall apply to land acquired by the market committee under sub-section (1) or acquired by transfer, purchase, gift or otherwise and use for the purpose of establishment of a market yard or a sub-market yard. Provided that the premises used for market yard, sub market year or for the purpose of the Board shall not be deemed to be included in the limits of the Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council, Notified Area, Gram Panchayat or a Special Area Development Authority, as the case may be.”
6. A bare reading of the aforesaid section makes it clear that the provisions of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 and the Rules made thereunder shall not apply to 4 W.P No.608/2001 diversion of land, revision of land revenue consequent on the change in the use of land from agriculture to any other purpose and other matters incidental thereto, to land acquired by the market committee or acquired by transfer, purchase, gift or otherwise and use for the purpose of establishment of a market yard or a sub- market yard.
7. In view of the clear statutory provisions and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nagar Palika Nigam (supra) and the Division Bench of this Court in M.P No.213/1979, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned demand notices, Annexures P-2 & P-3, dated 24.11.1992 and 21.3.1994 being without jurisdiction, deserve to be and are hereby quashed.
8. In view of the aforesaid the petition filed by the petitioner stands allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to the costs. ( R. S. JHA ) JUDGE 26 06/2012 mms/-