( 1. ) THE appellants have filed this writ appeal under Section 2 (1) of the madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Pith Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 aggrieved by order dated 10-3-2006 passed by learned Single Judge in W. P. No. 1323/2006.

( 2. ) THE brief facts of the case are that agricultural land bearing Survey nos. 858,859,869,870,875 and 876 having a total area of 2. 027 hectares situated in Village Shakarpur Tehsil and District Gwalior, was belonging to one Kanno alia Hargovind. Deceased Kanno was having two sons, i. e. , Chimman Singh alias chimmanlal and Harprasad. It was the case of the petitioner that Chimmanlal died on 8-11-93 and thereafter, his legal heirs Sohanlal, Balwant, Sovran Singh and Pokhran alongwith Harprasad were looking after the agricultural land and became Bhumiswami of the aforesaid land.

( 3. ) COMPETENT Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter shall be referred to as "act of 1976") has found the aforesaid land lying vacant and therefore, proceedings under the Act of 1976 were initiated in the year of 1995. It was directed that notice be issued to holders of land but it is admitted position on record that notices were not served, as the correct address of the appellants was not known to the Competent authority and therefore, return was not submitted as required under the Act of 1976 by the holders of the land. By order dated 30-1-1996 the land admeasuring 15770 sq. metre were declared "surplus" without notice and again it was directed that notice be served on the holders of the land. But from the record, it is clear that the notices could not be served on the appellants for one or the other reason. Thereafter, on 20-8-96 the "surplus" land was notified and proceedings under Section 10 (3) of the Act of 1976 were initiated. The notice of aforesaid notification and institution of proceedings under Section 10 (3) of the Act of 1976 were also not served on the respondents. Thereafter, it was the case of the respondent/state that on 30-7-97 receipt of possession was obtained and possession of the land was taken.

( 4. ) BUT the case of the appellants is that no notice was ever served on them either of registration of ceiling case or of preliminary enquiry or decelerating the land "surplus" or notifying the land or before taking the possession of the land from them. It is their submission that still the land is in their possession and in the year of 1995 the respondents have sold some portion of the land to the purchasers. It is also the case of the appellants before the Writ court that after the death of Chimmanlal, no notices have ever been issued to the legal heirs of Chimmanlal for ceiling proceedings. It is also their case that some of the portion of the land have been sold to the purchasers and the land is mutated in their names in the revenue record. But even then proceedings were not dropped, therefore, they have filed W. P. No. 1323/2006 claiming the relief that the orders Annexures P-1, P-2 and P-3 may be quashed. In reply the stand of the State was that the proceedings are legal.

( 5. ) THE learned Writ Court was of the view that the appellants are having alternative remedy of filing civil suit and, therefore, the writ petition was dismissed with a liberty to the appellants to avail the remedy of filing civil suit. Against which the appellants have filed this writ appeal.

( 6. ) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the original record of the ceiling proceedings maintained by the Competent authority under the Act of 1976. It is admitted position on record that since very beginning, i. e. , from the start of the ceiling proceedings till taking over possession of the land, the notices were not duly served on the appellants. We have also perused the order-sheet dated 8-11-1995, in which it is mentioned that registered letter were sent on wrong address. Order-sheet dated 8-12-1995 indicates that when service was not affected by post, d