2025 (12) TMI 358 - HC - Indian Laws

Show cause notice on disputed land status upheld; parties to contest title issues before Collector enquiry

Ndore Christian College Indore Through Secretary And Principal Dr. Amit David Versus State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

The HC declined to interfere with the impugned show cause notice issued by the Collector concerning the status of disputed land, holding that the notice ... Challenge to notice issued - SCN or order? - In the show cause notice finding itself has been recorded in respect of the allegations levelled - HELD THAT:- On the basis of the avernments made in the notice an enquiry is being conducted by the Collector as to whether the land is Government land or not. If the petitioner is of the opinion that the same is not Government land and has not reverted to the State Government and has reverted to the Maharani or her successors then there is no reason as to why such submissions should not be made before the Collector. The land was initially given to the Canadian mission. What would be the effect of the grant in favour of the Canadian mission would also be required to be considered. The flow of title of the property is not an admitted fact. It has to be considered whether the land granted to the Canadian mission was of Maharani or was of the Holkdar State or of the Maharaja. At this stage the contentions as raised by the petitioner cannot be accepted since they required adjudication and determination for which the petitioner has been called for by the Collector. It would be just and proper for the petitioner to appear before the Collector and to file the reply so that a proper and effective adjudication in the matter can be made. In the available facts of the case, it is not inclined to interfere in a mere show cause notice issued to the petitioner. The petition stands disposed of however without expressing any opinion on merits. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1.1 Whether a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against a show cause notice issued by the Collector under Section 182 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. 1.2 Whether the impugned show cause notice, by containing reasons and prima facie observations, can be treated as a final order recording findings on title and ownership of the land. 1.3 Whether the Court should interfere at the preliminary stage of enquiry into the nature of the land and the effect of the original grant, when disputed questions regarding title and reversion are yet to be adjudicated by the competent authority. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 2.1 Maintainability of writ petition against show cause notice under Article 226 and Section 182 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 Legal framework 2.1.1 The Court proceeded on the footing that the impugned notice was issued under Section 182 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, and examined the challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution at the stage of a show cause notice. Interpretation and reasoning 2.1.2 The Court noted that only a show cause notice had been issued and that no final decision had been taken regarding title, ownership, or reversion of the land. 2.1.3 It was emphasised that the petitioner had an opportunity to appear before the Collector, file a reply, and advance all contentions regarding the nature of the land, the original grant, and the question of reversion, and that the enquiry was still pending. 2.1.4 The Court accepted the respondent's contention that the petition was premature, since the proceedings before the Collector were at a nascent stage and the statutory authority had not yet adjudicated upon the disputed facts. Conclusions 2.1.5 The Court held that interference under Article 226 at the stage of a mere show cause notice was not warranted and declined to entertain the writ petition on the ground of prematurity, leaving the petitioner to participate in the proceedings before the Collector. 2.2 Nature and effect of the show cause notice - whether it contains final findings on title or ownership Interpretation and reasoning 2.2.1 The petitioner contended that the impugned notice was biased, issued with an ulterior motive to take possession and close down the college, and that it contained recorded findings on the allegations, thus ceasing to be a show cause notice and amounting to an order. 2.2.2 The Court examined the notice and held that it was 'certainly a show cause notice only'; although it contained reasons and recitals explaining why it was being issued, it did not record any conclusive finding regarding title or ownership of the land. 2.2.3 The Court found that the notice merely stated the basis for initiating an enquiry: that the land had been given on conditions without rent for a college and hospital; that it was presently being used by an entity described as Canadian Church UCNI instead of the mission; that no women hospital was being operated and the building was in a dilapidated condition; that efforts were being made to use the land for other purposes; and that the land appeared to fall within the ambit of Government lease land. 2.2.4 To remove any apprehension, the Court expressly clarified that any observations made in the impugned show cause notice shall not be treated as final findings in the matter. Conclusions 2.2.5 The Court held that the impugned communication remained a show cause notice and did not amount to a final order; the observations therein were only prima facie and not determinative of title or rights. 2.3 Scope of enquiry before the Collector and appropriateness of judicial intervention at this stage Interpretation and reasoning 2.3.1 The Court noted that, on the basis of the averments in the notice, an enquiry was being conducted by the Collector to determine whether the land was Government land or not. 2.3.2 The Court recorded that the petitioner's stand was that the land was originally granted by Maharani Bhagirathi Bai Saheb Holkar to a mission, that upon breach of conditions it would revert to the Maharani or her successors and not to the State Government, and that the State of Madhya Pradesh was not the successor to the land belonging to the Maharani. 2.3.3 The Court observed that the 'flow of title' was not an admitted fact and required adjudication, including: whether the land granted to the mission belonged to the Maharani personally, to the Holkar State, or to the Maharaja; the effect of the original grant in favour of the mission; and the legal consequence of any alleged breach or transfer. 2.3.4 It held that such disputed factual and legal questions were precisely what the Collector had been called upon to examine in the pending enquiry, and that they could and should be raised by the petitioner before the Collector in response to the show cause notice. 2.3.5 The Court stated that, at this stage, the petitioner's contentions on title and reversion could not be accepted or adjudicated in writ proceedings, as they required detailed determination by the competent authority. Conclusions 2.3.6 The Court concluded that it would be just and proper for the petitioner to appear before the Collector and file a reply so that a proper and effective adjudication could be made at the administrative level. 2.3.7 The writ petition was disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the title, ownership, or reversion of the land, and with the clarification that the observations in the show cause notice are not to be treated as final findings.