Back
RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY
Narendra Kumar Sonkar S/o Late Ram Prasad Sonkar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the prescribed authority under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred as the Act, 1976), dated 18.04.2017 whereby the application preferred by the petitioner has been rejected.
2. The facts of the case are that a property bearing survey Nos.799, 989, 856/3 admeasurig 4850 s.m., 2750 s.m. and 2450 s.m. situated at Village Chilhudih and Survey No. 1079 admeasuring 1210 s.m. situated at Gudhiyar area and survey Nos. 191, 193, 194 situated at Village Kota admeasuring 12790 s.m., 4050 s.m., 3880 s.m. respectively, were purchased by the petitioner when he was minor through natural guardian his mother through registered sale deeds dated 14.03.1966, 30.01.1962, 21.02.1962 and 21.02.1962. A Ceiling Case No.19-A-90(C)(1) year 1984-85 was registered against the petitioner under the provisions of the Act 1976 for having land more than the ceiling limit. The competent authority issued a notice, on 30.01.1986 an enquiry was submitted before the competent authority to the effect that the pe
It is incumbent upon the competent authority to be in actual possession of the property for substantiating its stand that the provisions of repeal Act would not be applicable.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the State must establish the voluntary surrender of vacant land or forceable dispossession under the ULC Act. Failure to do so entitles the la....
Failure to issue mandatory notices under the Urban Land Act invalidates state claims of land possession, allowing petitioners to retain ownership rights based on ongoing lawful occupancy.
Possession of land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act must be established lawfully; mere vesting does not equate to possession, especially post-repeal.
The court held that statutory compliance under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act is mandatory for valid dispossession, emphasizing that mere vesting does not equate to possession.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
