STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH REVENUE DEPTT COLLECTOR JABALPUR Vs. ABDUL RAHIM KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the defendant, State of Madhya Pradesh, against a decree for injunction restraining it to demolish certain constructions of the plaintiff in pursuance of an order passed by the Additional Collector, Jabalpur.

(2.) THE facts are that the plaintiff Haji Abdul Gafoor Khan was granted nazul land measuring 680 sq. ft. out of plot No. 77 Block No. 43 situated in hanumantal area, Jabalpur. The plaintiff held this land under two licences which are Exs. P-1 and P-2. The first licence, Ex. P-1, was executed on 30th october 1957 and the second licence, Ex. P-2, was executed on 13th June 1959. The parties to these documents are the Governor of Madhya Pradesh, called the grantor, and Haji Abdul Gafoor Khan, the plaintiff, called the licensee. The terms of the two licences are identical. The plaintiff was authorised under these licences to make constructions upon the land. The grantor, however, had reserved the power to terminate the licences under certain conditions. The relevant clauses in that respect arc clauses (i) and (iv) (a) which read as follows :

(3.) THE plaintiff then commenced the suit giving rise to this appeal for a declaration that the aforesaid order of the Additional Collector was illegal and void and not binding on him. He also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-State from giving effect to that order. The plaintiff's case was that after the order of the Commissioner the Additional Collector did not make any inquiry whether the land was required for any public purpose and the order was not made in good faith. It was also alleged that the plaintiff acting upon the licences had invested Rs. 20,000 in making permanent constructions and the licences could not be revoked. In the written statement it was pleaded that the Additional Collector, after examining the matter thoroughly, came to the conclusion that the land in question was required for public use by the people of the locality for their religious and social purposes and that the land was also required for the purpose of a urinal and a tap. The plaintiff led evidence to show that the land was never in public use for any religious or social purpose and that no member of the public desired to use the land for any such purpose. Evidence was also led that there was no necessity of a urinal or a tap upon the land. The defendant-State did not lead any evidence. Even the Additional Collector was not examined.