( 1. ) THIS judgment shall finally dispose of Writ Appeal No. 313/2006 (Nandlal Vs. State of M. P. and 3 others) and Writ Appeal No. 315/2006 (Biharilal vs. State of M. P. and others)

( 2. ) ON an earlier occasion petitioner Biharilal and Nandlal had come to this court in Writ Petition No. 810/2001 and Writ Petition No. 809/2001 respectively praying as under :

"7. 1 That, the notification issued u/s 10 (3) of the Act dated 1. 4. 1994 (Annexure P/6), as also document taking the possession from 8. 2. 2000 (Annexure P/7) may kindly be quashed. 7. 2 That, this Honble Court may kindly be pleased to hold that petitioner is the owner of the land held by him at village Barkhedi kalan and- Khuda Ganj, district Bhopal in view of Section-3 of the urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act. 7. 3 That, the respondents may kindly be directed to correct the revenue record and enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue record in respect of land situate in village Barkhedi Kalan and khuda Gary, District Bhopal. 7. 4 That, the respondents may kindly be restrained from interfering with the possession of the lands held by the petitioner. 7. 5 Any other relief or reliefs deem fit and proper under the present facts of the case. 7. 6 Cost of the petition. "

In the writ petition it was put forth that the petitioners being agriculturists they owned land and as the competent authority had declared some land surplus the High Court should interfere in the matter. However, at the time of final hearing it was submitted that as the petitioners who were never dispossessed from the property and they continued in possession in view of the Urban Land (Ceiling and regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Repeal Act) the proceedings would stand abated and the petitioner would continue to be the owner of the property and the property would not vest in the State Government. The learned single Judge of this Court disposed of the petition with the following directions:

"11. Mr. Alok Aradhe, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the possession has only been taken over on paper but the same has really not been taken over, as records would clearly show. On the contrary, Mr. Ajay Raizada, learned government Advocate, submitted that the possession has been taken over as per the provisions of the principal Act. This being a disputed question of fact this court cannot enter into the same to find out whether the possession, as an actual fact, has been taken over. Mr. Raizada has contended that the office of the competent authority has not been abolished. In view of this, I am inclined to direct that the petitioner shall put forth their grievance before the competent authority that the possession has not been taken over and, therefore, no further action can be taken as Section 4 clearly stipulates all proceedings except proceedings under Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14 would abate. In fact, in the case of N. Audikesava reddy (supra) it was clearly laid down that if the possession is not taken over the same cannot be taken over by the State government. Keeping in view the factual scenario it is directed that the competent authority shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to put forth their grievance that bow the possession has not been taken over as per law and nothing subsists to be done in the proceeding. It will be open to the petitioner to raise all the contention from all fours relating to the factum of taking over of possession

( 3. ) AFTER such directions were issued by the Court, an enquiry was made by the competent authority and after recording the evidence from the side of the petitioners final order came to be passed on 1. 12. 2005 in Case No. 6-7/b-121/ 2005-06. The learned competent authority observed that the petitioners were not dispossessed nor actual physical possession was taken but only paper entries were made, that the petitioners continued to be in possession of the property on the date of the en