Back
2011 Supreme(MP) 273
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ALOK ARADHE ]
Prabhudayal & Ors
Versus
State of M. P. & Ors
W. P. No. 3053 of 2000
Decided On : 05/04/2011
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the possession of surplus land must be taken in accordance with the law, and failure to do so can lead to the abatement of proceedings under the Repeal Act, 1999.
Headnote:
Urban Land - Quashment of orders under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Section 6, 8(9), 10(5), 10(6), 3, 4 of the 1976 Act and Repeal Act, 1999 - Section 3(2)(a), 4 - Possession not taken in accordance with law - Proceedings abated under Section 4 of the Repeal Act
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought quashment of orders declaring their land as surplus under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The petitioners claimed that the land declared surplus had already been acquired by the Jabalpur Development Authority and possession had not been taken from them. The respondents argued that possession was taken before the commencement of the Repeal Act, 1999, and the land had vested with the State Government.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the possession of the land was never taken from the petitioners in accordance with the law. The court held that the proceedings under the 1976 Act had abated in view of Section 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999. The court quashed the orders and held that the respondents cannot take possession of the land from the petitioners.
Issues: The main issue was whether the possession of the land had been taken in accordance with the law before the commencement of the Repeal Act, 1999.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the 1976 Act and the Repeal Act, 1999 to determine that the possession had not been taken in accordance with the law, leading to the abatement of the proceedings.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the orders declaring the land as surplus were quashed. The court held that the proceedings had abated under Section 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999, and the respondents cannot take possession of the land from the petitioners.
In this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a direction for quashment of the orders contained in Annexures P/1, P/5, P/11, P/12, P/14 and P/15 as well a direction restraining the respondents from taking possession of the land belonging to the petitioners bearing Khasra Nos. 35/1 and 92/2 situate at village Gohalpur, District Jabalpur on the ground that the same has been declared surplus under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that father of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 late Sarmanlal was the owner of certain lands situate at Village Gohalpur, Jabalpur. Pursuant to the partition effected amongst the members of the family, the land held by late Sarmanlal was allotted to him as well as the petitioners. A proceeding under Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 1976 Act) was initiated against the petitioners as well as their father namely late Sarmanlal. On receipt of notice, the petitioners as well as their father submitted a return on 4-8-1980 before the competent authority. The competent authority on receipt of the return filed on behalf of the petitioners as well as their father, called for the report of the revenue officer in respect of lands in question. Thereafter, the competent authority by order dated 29-9-1997 passed a final order under Section 8(9) of the 1976 Act by which land admeasuring .995 hectares was declared surplus. While passing the aforesaid order, the competent authority also took into 1/29/2012 account land bearing Khasra No. 39/2 situate at village Gohalpur and declared the same to be surplus.
3. The petitioners immediately on receipt of the order dated 29-9-1997 filed an application under Section 45 of the 1976 Act on 25-11-1997 for correction of clerical error. It was pointed out in the application that land bearing Khasra No. 39/2 situate at village Gohalpur, Distt. Jabalpur was already acquired by the Jabalpur Development Authority in the year 1968 and the compensation has already been paid to the petitioners. However, the aforesaid land has inadvertently been taken into account while computing the entitlement of the petitioners to hold the land. However, the aforesaid application was not decided. Thereafter, by a notice issued under Section 10(5) of the 1976 Act dated 31-5-1999 Annexure P/5 by the competent authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Jabalpur, the petitioners were informed that they should handover the possession of land admeasuring 9950 Sq. metre within a period of 30 days to the Tahsildar, Nazul. The Tahsildar, Nazul was directed that in case the petitioners do not handover the possession of the lands, he should take requisite action to take possession. Thereupon, the petitioners again submitted a reply Annexure P/6 and pointed out that the clerical error which has crept in with regard to land bearing Khasra No. 39/2 be corrected, as the aforesaid land has already been acquired by the Jabalpur Development Authority and is not in possession of the petitioners.
4. The Naib Tahsildar, Nazul issued a notice Annexure P/7 by which the petitioners were asked to appear on 19-7-1999. The petitioners again submitted a reply to the aforesaid notice in which similar objection was taken. Thereafter, by order dated 9-3-2000, the Tahsildar directed the Naib Tahsildar, Nazul to immediately take possession of the land and to submit an explanation forthwith to the competent authority, Urban Land Ceiling, as to why there was delay in taking over the possession. However, on 10-3-2000, the Naib Tahsildar, Nazul recorded an order sheet that he had authorized the Patwari to take possession and the Patwari has already taken possession on 10-2-2000. Accordingly, the records were directed to be corrected. On 24-4-2000, the records were corrected and the proceedings were closed. It is the case of the petitioners th
