PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD., AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF M.P. AND ANOTHER

Officer, dt.12/6/91 was challenged before the Addl. Collector and the Addl. Collector by an order dt. 23/10/91 set aside the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and held that the land revenue should be charged on the basis of actual use, meaning thereby, the order of the Sub Divisional Officer, by which land revenue was being charged treating the entire land as commercial land was set aside. The Joint Director, Town & Country Planning Department also vide letter dt. 21/9/95 clarified that the land in question was used for industrial purposes and residential purposes. It has been further stated that the land was reassessed for payment of land revenue by an order dt. 29/5/06 and a premium of Rs.51015/- was assessed and the yearly land revenue assessed as Rs.53993/-. A demand was raised by the --- 4 --- respondents directing the petitioner no.1 Company to pay a sum of Rs.963902/- and the same was deposited on 17/4/07. The petitioner Company has further stated that under the Development Plan 2011, notified on 15/6/2006 by the Town & Country Planning Department, the entire land use was notified as residential. The petitioner No.1 has further stated that an application was submitted by the petitioner Company under the Rules for Registration of Coloniser Nagar Nigam, 1998 and the petitioner Company was registered as Coloniser on 24/6/2006. The petitioner Company submitted an application to the Joint Director, Town & Country Planning Department, Ujjain to sanction the layout for development of a colony in two parts and the Town & Country Planning Department sanctioned the lay out plans vide order dt. 7/7/06 and order dt. 24/8/06 in respect of

31.742 hectares and 7.642 hectares respectively. Petitioner has further stated that after receiving permission from the Town & Country Planning Department to develop colonies, the petitioner Company applied for development permission to the Municipal Corporation, Ujjain and at the same time, --- 5 --- the petitioner Company was informed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Ujjain to deposit an amount of Rs.3.00 lacs under the Revenue Head 8443. The amount was deposited on 29/8/06 along with an approved layout plan as approved by the Town & Country Planning Department. The petitioner Company also submitted No Objection Certificate obtained from the Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, from Nazul Officer and the Municipal Corporation, Ujjain, after receiving NOCs from various Departments directed the petitioner Company to deposit a sum of Rs.2.04 crores. The petitioner Company deposited a sum of Rs.2.04 crores with the Municipal Corporation, Ujjain towards shelter fee, external development charges and supervision charges. The petitioner Company thereafter applied for mutation before the Municipal Corporation, Ujjain and the Municipal Corporation, Ujjain after charging property tax to the tune of Rs.1208746/- for the year 2006 – 2007 and Rs.1347743/- for the year 2007 – 2008, mutated the petitioner No.1 Company as owner of the land in question --- 6 --- vide order dt. 21-5-2007 / 3-3-2008. A certificate was also issued by the Municipal Corporation, Ujjain on 6/12/2006 certifying that the land of the petitioner No.1 Company is a diverted land. The petitioner Company was finally granted permission by the Municipal Corporation, Ujjain to develop a colony vide order dt. 1/2/07 and order dt. 12/7/07 and the petitioner Company after receiving permission announced its residential project consisting of 1083 residential plots. The petitioner Company has already booked about 650 plots for sale. The respondent No.2 Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) issued a notice on 12/10/2007 demanding diversion security deposit under Rule 4(3) of the MP Diversion Rules and the petitioner Company submitted a reply on 18/1/08 informing the Sub Divisional Officer that they have already deposited a sum of Rs.3.00 lacs as diversion security charges on 29/8/06 and a sum of Rs.9639021/- as diversion dues vide receipt dt. 17/4/07. The petitioner Company successfully completed development work in respect of 7.642 hectares of land and a completion certificate was also issued by the Municipal --- 7 --- Corporation, Ujjain. In respect of the remaining part, the petitioner Company has incurred an expenditure to the tune of Rs.10.00 crores and the work is under completion. The petitioner Company further contended that a Press-Note was released by the Commissioner (Revenue) Ujjain on 17/11/2010 and 18/11/2010 wherein it was notified that the petitioner No.1 was developing a colony and the land is not diverted in the name of the petitioner Company. The petitioner Company after enquiring the matter from the Revenue Authoroties submitted a representation on 4/12/10 to the Divisional Commissioner (Revenue) and informed about the permissions granted by the Department of Town & Country Planning as well as Municipal Corporation, Ujjain and to the utter surprise of the petitioner Company, an order was received by them on 2/2/11 passed under Section 172 of the MP Land Revenue Code stating that the petitioner Company is developing a residential colony without getting the land diverted in the name of the petitioner Company. The petitioner Company left with no other choice came up before this Court by filing a writ petition and after filing the --- 8 --- present writ petition, notices were issued by this Court and the respondents were directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner Company. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent No.2 without hearing the petitioner Company passed an ex-parte order on 23/2/11 directing the petitioner Company to remove the development work carried out by the petitioner in one month and a penalty was also imposed to the tune of Rs.2,000/-. The Petitioner Company has further stated that the Show Cause Notice dt. 2/2/11 and the order passed by the respondents dt. 23/2/11 deserves to be quashed as void ab initio. A reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent State and it has been stated that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the orders have been passed under the MP Land Revenue Code and there is a remedy of appeal and revision available to the petitioner. The respondents have further stated that they have initiated suitable action u/S. 172 of the MP Land Revenue Code and after suitable action and enquiry in the matter and after following the principles of --- 9 --- natural justice & fair play, the Sub Divisional Officer, directed the petitioner Company to show cause in the matter and thereafter a final order has been passed. Respondents have further stated that the petitioner Company has straightway rushed to this court. The respondents have further stated that they are unaware of the history of the case specially in respect of the facts as to how the petitioner Company came in possession of the land. The respondents have also stated that there is no direct connection with the petitioner with reference to diversion order dt. 29/5/06 passed in the matter of M/s. IISCO Ujjain Pipe & Foundary Company Ltd., The respondents have also stated that by order dt. 29/5/06, 3.15 hectares land of Nagjhiri was diverted for commercial purposes and remaining 23.787 hectares was diverted for residential purposes. It has been further stated that complete land measuring 14.400 hectares of Nimanwasa was diverted for commercial purposes but the petitioners are using the said land for a residential purposes alone. It has been further stated that order Annexure A/8 and A/9 were duly set aside by the appellate authority. The --- 10 --- respondents have also stated that they are filing complete text of Sec. 172 which deals with diversion of the land. The respondents have further stated with reference to Development Plan 2021 notified on 15/6/2006 that its notification is subject to interpretation as to its effect. The respondents have also in this paragraph categorically stated that the land use is residential as per the development plan. The respondents have further stated that mere registration as a coloniser does not mean that the petitioners have any legal right to develop a colony on the disputed land unless and until necessary formalities are completed, specially formalities prescribed u/S. 172 of the MP Land Revenue Code. The respondents have categorically stated that unless and until the land is diverted for residential purpose, no colony can be developed because different purposes carries different rate of rent, premium and other charges. In respect of the various permissions granted by the various authorities from time to time to develop the land and to establish a residential colony, the respondents have in their return in para 11, stated that they are unaware of the aforesaid facts. It --- 11 --- has been further stated that some of the Departments might have given No Objection Certificate but it does not mean that the petitioner Company is authorised to bye-pass the provisions of Sec. 172 of the MP Land Revenue Code. It has been further stated that grant of No Objection Certificate by the Town & Country Planning Department, permission to develop a colony by the Town & Country Planning Department, and permission by the Municipal Corporation Ujjain to develop a colony has got no meaning keeping in view the Section 172 of the MP Land Revenue Code and unless and until the provisions of Sec. 172 of the Code are complied with, the petitioner's cannot develop a colony. It has been further stated that the petitioners are not getting the land diverted only because they will have to pay huge amount to the Government by way of rent and premium and therefore the Show Cause Notice was rightly issued by the respondents. In paragraphs 12 and 13 of the return, the respondents have reiterated that unless and until the provisions as contained u/S. 172 are complied with, the petitioners cannot be permitted to develop a colony and the --- 12 --- petitioners in utter disregard and violation of law have committed breach of the provisions as contained u/S. 172 of the MP Land Revenue Code. It has been stated that the completion certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation, Ujjain is just an empty formality and it does not create any right in favour of the petitioners. The respondents have also stated that the petitioners should have deposited the security amount with the Government keeping in view Rule 4 (1) Expression 3 of the Development Rules and the same has not been done. The respondents have reiterated that there is a remedy of appeal available to the petitioner before the Collector and before the Commissioner under the MP Land Revenue Code. The respondents in paragraphs 16 to 19 have repeated the earlier averments made in the preceding paragraphs and it has been stated that M/s. IISCO Ujjain Pipe & Foundary Company Ltd., got the land diverted for industrial purposes and industries were set up and certain residential quarters were constructed. It has been stated that the Company has never applied for diversion for colony purposes and in case the petitioner Company wishes to --- 13 --- develop a colony, they have to apply to the competent authority u/S. 172 of the MP Land Revenue Code. The respondents in para 20, by way of additional pleadings have stated that after issuing a show cause notice, a final order has been passed by the competent authority dt. 23/2/11 and the same can be challenged before the Collector or Commissioner. It has been reiterated in subsequent paragraphs that a remedy is available to the petitioners u/Ss. 44 to 56 to file appeal and revision. The respondents have also, by way of special pleadings, brought to the notice of this Court rules regarding diversion of land for building purposes notified vide Notification dt. 3/5/63 and their contention is that the petition deserves to be dismissed and as the Government has been forced to defend the case for no good reason made out by the petitioner, the cost of litigation may be awarded to the respondents. A rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the petitioners and it has been reiterated that by the impugned order dt. 2/2/11 the petitioners have been directed to stop all development work on the project as diversion has not been --- 14 --- done in the name of the petitioner. The contention of the petitioners is that diversion is not done every time the land is sold to another person. In fact, diversion is done in respect of the land in question. The respondents have also filed additional reply keeping in view the rejoinder and it has been stated the M/s. IISCO Ujjain Pipe & Foundary Company Ltd., has never applied for diversion or for change of land use and as land use was changed, proceedings u/S. 59 of the Code were initiated and lateron as it was found that the land was being used by M/s. IISCO Ujjain Pipe & Foundary Company Ltd., for commercial purposes without obtaining any diversion order u/s. 172, and a penalty was also imposed. The land revenue and premium was also reassessed. Subsequently an order was pased on 29/5/06 by the Sub Divisional Officer, and it was found that the Unit was closed since 1995 and the Unit has changed the land use without any diversion and land was being used for commercial as well as residential purposes and therefore reassessment of land revenue was done. The respondents have admitted that they have --- 15 --- imposed a penalty and they have reassessed the premium in accordance with law. It has been reiterated that no application for diversion was submitted u/S. 172 at any point of time by the predecessor in title or by the petitioner and therefore the Show Cause Notice has rightly been issued by the respondents. The respondents have admitted in para 3 (ii) that as per the Master Plan, the land in question is reserved for residential area, however, they have clarified that prior to coming into force of Master Plan on 15/6/06, the land was not diverted for residential purposes. The respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. A sur – rejoinder has been filed to the additional reply and it has been reiterated that the impugned order is bad in law as in the impugned order it has been stated that the land has not been diverted in the name of the petitioner Company and because there is no requirement of diversion in case a sale takes place. The respondents have stated that the land was diverted while M/s. IISCO Ujjain Pipe & Foundary Company Ltd., was the owner of the land in question and the permission granted by the various authorities have been --- 16 --- granted with due application of mind and the impugned order deserves to be quashed. It has also been stated that the respondents have failed to demonstrate as to how rules made u/S. 172 of the Land Revenue Code regarding colonisation would apply to the land under the Municipal limits for which separate M.P. Nagar Palika Registration of Coloniser Terms & Conditions Rules, 1998 have been framed. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of the impugned order. Heard the learned counsel counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. The matter is being disposed of at motion hearing stage itself with the consent of the parties. In the present case, the petitioner No.1 is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is owner of the land admeasuring 41.312 hectares. The land in question was sold by the Official Liquidator, Calcutta High Court, in favour of M/s. Ajar Enterprises Ltd., and M/s. Ajar Enterprises Ltd., vide registered sale deed dt. 10/4/06 has sold the land to the petitioner Company. In the present case, it has not been disputed by the State Government that the --- 17 --- land use as per the development plan – 2021 notified on 15/6/2006 is residential. M/s. IISCO Ujjain Pipe & Foundary Company Ltd., was the original owner of the land in question and got the land diverted on 9/5/98 for Industrial (Commercial purpose) and diversion tax was assessed vide order dt. 9/5/88. In the year 1991, the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) by an order dt. 12/6/91 reassessed the land revenue and directed the Company to pay the land revenue at commercial rates as the entire land was being used for industrial purpose. It is also pertinent to note that the order dt. 12/6/91 was challenged before the Addl. Collector and the Addl. Collector by an order dt. 23/10/91 set aside the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, and held that the land revenue should be charged on the basis of its actual use. Not only this, the Joint Director, Town & Country Planning Department, has also vide letter dt. 21/9/95 clarified that the land in question was used for industrial purposes and residential purposes as well. Land Revenue as also the premium was paid from time to time on the basis of actual use of the land which was either commercial or --- 18 --- residential. It is not a case where agricultural land was being used as commercial land or agricultural land was being used for residential purposes. It is pertinent to note that a demand was also raised by the respondents directing the petitioner Company to pay a sum of Rs.963902/- and the same was deposited on 17/4/07. The petitioner Company as it wanted to develop a colony, applied before the Municipal Corporation, Ujjain under the provisions of Rules for Registration of the Coloniser Nagar Nigam, 1998 and the Company was registered as Coloniser on 24/6/06. The Joint Director, Town & Country Planning Department, Ujjain has also granted permission to develop a colony in two parts and the layouts were sanctioned on 7/7/06 and 24/8/06 in respect of 31.742 hectares and 7.642 hectares respectively. The Municipal Corporation, Ujjain, keeping in view, the Rules for Registration of the Coloniser Nagar Nigam, 1998, granted development permission to the petitioner Company and the petitioner Company was also directed to deposit a sum of Rs.3.00 lacs by the Sub Divisional Officer, under the Revenue Head 8443. The --- 19 --- amount was deposited by the petitioner Company and the various agencies of the State Government including Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Nazul Officer, Ujjain, granted permission / No Objection to the petitioner to develop a colony. The petitioner was directed by the Municipal Corporation to deposit a sum of Rs.2.04 crores and the same was deposited by the petitioner Company towards shelter fee, external development charges and supervision charges. The name of the petitioner Company was also mutated by the Municipal Corporation, Ujjain after charging property tax to the tune of Rs.1208746/- for the year 2006 – 2007 and Rs.1347743/- for the year 2007 –

2008. A certificate was also issued by the Municipal Corporation, Ujjain on 6/12/06 certifying that the land belonging to the petitioner Company is a diverted land. The company was finally granted permission by the Corporation to develop a colony vide order dt. 1/2/07 and order dt. 12/7/07. The petitioner Company has already successfully completed development work in respect of 7.642 hectares of land and a completion certificate has also been issued by the --- 20 --- Municipal Corporation, Ujjain. In respect of the remaining work, the work is under completion. A Press-Note was released by the Commissioner Revenue, Ujjain on 17/11/10 informing that the petitioner No.1 was developing a colony and the land is not diverted in the name of the petitioner Company. A representation was submitted by the petitioner Company before the Divisional Commissioner Revenue and all permissions granted by the various authorities of the State Government were brought to the notice of the learned Commissioner. However, the impugned order has been passed on 23/2/11 u/S. 172 of the MP Land Revenue Code stating that the petitioner Company is developing a residential colony without getting the land diverted in the name of the petitioner Company. This Court has carefully gone through the impugned order passed u/S. 172(5) of the MP Land Revenue Code, 1959. The order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, reflects that no diversion has taken place in the name of the petitioner Company. The order further reveals that the petitioner Company without getting the land diverted has committed breach of the provisions of Sec. 172 --- 21 --- of the MP Land Revenue Code and the Company has been directed to remove the entire development work within a period of 30 days. A penalty of Rs.100/- per day has also been inflicted upon the petitioner Company and it has also been observed that in case the development work is not removed, the State Government shall be removing the same at the cost of the petitioner Company. Sec. 172 of the MP Land Revenue Code reads as under:

172. Diversion of land. (1) If a Bhumiswami of land held for any purpose in- (i) urban area or within a radius of five miles from the outer limits of such area ; (ii) a village with a population of two thousand or above according to last census ; or (iii) may, in such other areas as the State Government notification, specify ; wishes to divert his holding or any part thereof to any other purpose except agriculture, he shall apply for permission to the Sub Divisional Officer who may, subject to the provision of this section and to rules made under this code, refuse permission or grant it on such conditions as he may think fit : Provided that should the Sub --- 22 --- Divisional Officer, neglect or omit for three months after the receipt of an application under sub – section (1) to make and deliver to the applicant an order of permission or refusal in respect thereof, and the applicant has by written communication called the attention of the Sub Divisional Officer to the omission or neglect, and such omission or neglect continues for a further period of one month, the Sub Divisional Officer shall be deemed to have granted the permission without any condition; Second provisos applicable to MP a Provided Bhumiswami of a land, which is reserved for a purpose other than agriculture in the development plan but is used for agriculture, wishes to divert his land or any part thereof to the purpose for which it is reserved in the development plan, a written information of his intention given by Bhumiswami to the Sub Divisional Officer shall be sufficient and no permission is required for such diversion : further Provided also that if a Bhumiswami of a land wishes to divert his land or any part thereof which is assessed for agriculture purpose and situated in any area other than an area covered by development plan to the purpose of industry, a written information of his intention given by Bhumiswami to the Sub Divisional Officer shall be sufficient and no permission is required for such --- 23 --- diversion. The Second proviso to Sec. 172 provides that in case a Bhumiswami in respect of the land which is reserved for a purpose other than agriculture, under the development plan, is using it for agriculture and wishes to divert his land or any part thereof for the purposes for which it is reserved in the development plan, only a written information of his intention to the Sub Divisional Officer, shall be sufficient, meaning thereby, no permission is required for diversion in case the land use under the Master Plan is residential and the Bhumiswami who is doing agriculture wishes to use the land for residential purposes. The only requirement is to inform the Sub Divisional Officer about the intention to use the land for residential purposes. In the present case, the Sub Divisional Officer was very much aware of the fact that M/s. IISCO Ujjain Pipe & Foundary Company Ltd., was using the land for commercial as well as for residential purposes. Not only this, a fine was also imposed by the then Sub Divisional Officer, and therefore it is evident that the parties were well aware of the fact that the land is being used for --- 24 --- commercial as well as for residential purposes. The petitioner Company has also informed the Revenue Authorities from time to time and have also deposited the amount as and when directed in respect of land revenue as stated in the preceding paragraphs and therefore by no stretch of imagination it can be presumed that the Sub Divisional Officer was not having written information about the use of the land by the petitioner Company and therefore by virtue of the proviso to Sec. 172 of the MP Land Revenue Code, 1959, no proceedings afresh were required for diversion, as stated by the learned Sub Divisional Officer. In the present case, another important aspect has been dealt with by the learned Sub Divisional Officer. The learned Sub Divisional Officer has held that the petitioner Company has not taken any steps for getting the land diverted in its own name. In the impugned order it has been observed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer that the land has not been diverted in the name of the petitioner Company. Section 172 of the MP Land Revenue Code, 1959 --- 25 --- does not provide for diversion every time the land is sold from one person to another. Once a land is diverted, it remains diverted for that particular purpose and no fresh diversion is required if it is sold to another person and therefore this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Sub Divisional Officer has assigned an absurd reason contrary to the statutory provisions as contained u/S. 172 of the MP Land Revenue Code. It is pertinent to note that the Rules have been framed regarding diversion of land for building purposes under the MP Land Revenue Code, 1959 known as MP Diversion of Land Rules, 1962. The aforesaid Rules notified on 3/5/63 provides for a detailed procedure and certain safeguards in order to ensure that proper development work is carried out by a developer. The State Government in exercise of powers conferred under the Municipal Corporation Act, 1961 in the year 1998 has framed Rules in respect of colonisers and development work known as Rules for Registration of Coloniser Nagar Nigam, 1998. The aforesaid Rules requires for registration of a Coloniser in respect of a municipal area --- 26 --- and the petitioner was registered as a coloniser under the aforesaid Rules and layouts were sanctioned by the Town & Country Planning Department and by the Municipal Corporation, Ujjain after accepting a fee towards supervision charges, development charges, Aashray Shulk to the tune of Rs.2.04 crores. In the present case, the land in question is within the Municipal limits of Municipal Corporation, Ujjain and therefore it was mandatory for the petitioner to follow the provisions as contained under the Coloniser Rules of 1998 and the same has been complied with by the petitioner. The apex court while discussing the doctrine of implied repeal in the case of Ratanlal Adukia Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1990 SC 104, in para 11 has held as under :

11. The contention emphasised is that where a statute merely recognises a right pre-existing in common law and provides a remedy, such a remedy, unless the statute expressly bans or excludes other remedies, could only be an additional or concurrent one open to an election. It is true that where a statute does not itself bring into being a new right not pre-existing right and also provides a remedy therefor so however that the --- 27 --- right and the remedy cannot be said to have been brought into existence for the first time unoflatu, such a remedy would not generally be held to be exclusive but only an additional and concurrent one, along with the pre- existing remedies, unless there are express indications to the contrary in the statute itself. In Municipal Council, Palai v. T. J. Joseph, (1964) 2 SCR 87: (AIR 1963 SC 1561), this Court considered the tests of repugnancy applied under Art. 254(2) of the Constitution, relevant in the examination of circumstances bringing about an implied repeal. Strictly speaking the examination of the question whether an act of Parliament prevails against the law enacted by a State under Art. 254, does not really involve any question of repeal. In Zaverbhai Amaida v. State of Bombay, AIR 1954 SC 752 this Court applied the test conversely, of the principle of implied repeal to cases (of) repugnancy under Art. 254(2). It was observed: (at p. 758) "It is true, as already pointed out, that on a question under Art. 254(1) whether an Act of Parliament prevails against a law of the State, no question of repeal arises, but the principle on which the rule of implied repeal rests, namely, that if the subject-matter of the later legislation is identical with that of the earlier., so that they cannot both stand together, then the earlier is repealed by the later enactment, will be equally applicable to a question under Art. 254 (2) where the further --- 28 --- legislation by Parliament is in respect of the same matter as that of the State law." The doctrine of implied repeal is based on the postulate the legislature which is presumed to know the existing state of the law did not intend to create any confusion by retaining conflicting provisions. Courts in applying this doctrine are supposed merely to give effect to the legislative intent by examining the object and scope of the two enactments. But in a conceivable case, the very existence of two provisions may by itself, and without more, lead to an inference of mutual irreconcilability if the later set of provisions is by itself a complete code with respect to the same matter. In such a case the actual detailed comparison of the two sets of provisions may not be necessary. It is a matter of legislative intent that the two sets of provisions were not applied expected simultaneously. Section 80 is a special provisions. It deals with certain class of suits distinguishable on the basis of their particular subject-matters. The High Court has come to the conclusion that new S. 80 made a conscious departure on the law as to the place of suing in respect of suits of a particular subject-matter envisaged by that section. The High Court has held that the new S. 80 is a self-contained provision in regard to the choice offered for such suits. According to the High Court, there was a need for the legislature to --- 29 --- specify the places of suing which would otherwise be covered by S. 20, C.P.C. unless the special prescription as to places of suing was considered to be necessary in derogation to the general law as the matter contained in S. 20, C.P.C. or the provisions in the Small Cause Courts Act. As to the words "may be instituted" occurring in that section, the High Court observed [AIR 1987 Cal 311, Para 12, (FB)] "The use of the expression 'may be instituted' in S. 80 of the Railways Act was equivalent to 'shall be instituted'. Section 80 conferred right to institute suits for compensation against the Railways for breach of their obligations for carrying animals or goods passengers, specified in Chapt. VII of the Indian Railways Act. Both the obligation on the part of the Railways and the right of the consigner and the consignee to institute suits are now statutory in their nature. The clear intendment of the Legislature was that it would be obligatory for the plaintiffs to institute suits only in the Courts mentioned in S. 80 of the Railways Act for enforcement of the claims for compensation against the Railways." Keeping in view the judgment delivered by the apex court, the doctrine of implied repeal is also attracted in the present case. A similar set of Rules in respect of development of land framed by the State Government under --- 30 --- the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act are to be followed as the land in question is exclusively within the Municipal Limits and the petitioner was having all valid permissions and has carried out the development work in respect of one part of the land and in respect of the other part of the land the work is under completion. Not only this, no document has been filed by the State Government to establish that it is a forest land or it is an agricultural land. On the contrary, all the orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, from time to time, u/S. 172 as well as under other Sections of the MP Land Revenue Code, 1959 establishes that the land was being used by the predecessor in title either for industrial purpose or for residential purpose. The Master Plan of the year 2021 also provides that the land in question is exclusively meant for residential purpose and therefore by virtue of the second proviso to Sec. 172, no orders are required in respect of the diversion of the land in question. The Show Cause Notice dt. 2/2/11 and the final order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, dt. 23/2/11 have been passed in contravention to the statutory provisions as contained u/S. --- 31 --- 172 of the Code of 1959 and have to pave the path of extinction. In the present case, there appears to be total non – application of mind on the part of the Revenue Authorities in interpreting Sec. 172 of the MP Land Revenue Code,

1959. The land once diverted is diverted for ever unless and until an order is passed contrary to the earlier order of diversion or the diversion order is set aside by any other competent authority. The land, in case of a sale, does not require a fresh order of diversion, as held by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue). Resultantly, the impugned order is quashed. The writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. KR (S. C. SHARMA) J U D G E