Back
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Rohit Arya, J.
Sunil Bhadoria v. State of M.P. and others
Writ Petition No. 6175 of 2012 (Gwalior);
Decided on 5.1.2015
Counsel for respondents/State has denied the averments made in the petition and submitted that the land holders were served with draft statements prepared under section 8(3) and final statements prepared under section 9 of the Act of 1976. [Para 10
Held : There is nothing on record to suggest that the procedure as contemplated under rule 5 was followed in the matter of service of draft statements under section 8(3) and final statements under section 9 by registered post to the land holders. The order sheets of ceiling cases on record also do not reflect compliance of the aforesaid provisions in the matter of service of of draft statements and final statements. As such, there is substantial force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that for want of service of draft statements by registered post upon them, they had no occasion to file objection thereto as contemplated under section 8(4) of the Act of 1976, hence, the final statement was prepared without affording them opportunity of objecting to the same. (2013)4 SCC 280 followed. [Para 10
(2) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 -- Ss.9, 8(3) and 8(4) -- Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules, 1976 -- R.5 -- service of draft statement and final statement -- not made according to rule 5 by registered post -- final statement prepared without affording opportunity for filing objection as contemplated under section 8(4) -- it cannot be treated that such opportunity was provided. [Para 10
(3) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules, 1976 -- R.5(2)(a)(ii) -- manner of service of draft statement -- must be served by registered post upon holder and other interested persons -- without such service -- it cannot be treated that service was made in proper manner.
[Para 10
(4) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 -- S.10(5) and 10(6) -- notice for handing over possession -- endorsement about refusal to take -- thirty days time should be given from date of refusal -- but such time not provided -- ex-parte possession taken within thirty days -- such action of taking forcible possession -- cannot be said to be in conformity and fulfilment of section 10(5). [Para 10
(5) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 -- Ss.10(5) and 10(6) -- receipt of taking ex-parte possession -- value of -- nothing in order-sheets that when notice issued under section 10(5) -- when served or deemed to be served -- no panchnama prepared -- no proceedings recorded for initiation of action under section 10(6) -- taken such ex-parte possession by issuance of possession receipt -- cannot be countenanced.
[Para 10
(6) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 -- S.3 -- effect of -- receipts of taking ex-parte possession in case No.A and B -- but taking actual possession by State not proved -- actual possession with holders of land -- proved by order dated 19.4.2012 regarding right of way passed by Tahsildar -- ceiling proceedings abated by virtu of section 3 -- possession receipts quashed -- State authorities directed to delete entries in khasra as regards pendency of ceiling proceedings. [Paras 10 & 11
¼1½ uxj Hkwfe ¼vf/kdre lhek vkSj fofu;eu½ vf/kfu;e] 1976 & /kkjk 8¼3½ rFkk 8¼4½ & uxj Hkwfe vf/kdre lhek vkSj fofu;eu½ fu;e] 1976 & fu-5 & izk:i fooj.k dh rkehy & jftLVªhÑr Mkd }kjk ugha dh xbZ & bu mica/kksa dk vuqikyu & vkns'k i=dksa ls ijkofrZr ugha gksrk & /kkjd dks ml ij vkifÙk djus dk volj ugha Fkk & fu;e 5 ds vuqlkj rkehy ds fcuk & ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk fd ,slk vfèkdkj iznku fd;k x;k FkkA izR;FkhZx.k@jkT; ds dkmUlsy }kjk ;kfpdk esa fd, x, izdFkuksa ls badkj fd;k gS vkSj fuosnu fd;k fd Hkwfe /kkjdksa ij /kkjk 8¼3½ ds v/khu rS;kj fd, x, izk:i fooj.k vkSj vf/kfu;e] 1976 dh /kkjk 9 ds v/khu rS;kj fd, x, vafre fooj.k dh rkehy dh xbZ FkhA ¼iSjk 10½ vfHkfu/kkZfjr % vfHkys[k ij ,slk lq>k;k tkus ds fy, dqN Hkh ugha gS fd fu;e 5 esa tSlh izfØ;k vuq/;kr mldk /kkjk 8¼3½ ds v/khu izk:i fooj.k vkSj /kkjk 9 ds v/khu vafre fooj.k dh rkehy ds fo"k; esa jftLVªhÑr Mkd }kjk rkehy dh izfØ;k dk vuqikyu fd;k x;k FkkA vf/kdre lhek izdj.kksa ds vfHkys[k ds vkns'k i=d Hkh izk:i fooj.k vkSj vafre fooj.k dh rkehy ds fo"k; esa mi;qZDr mica/kksa dk vuqikyu fd;k tkuk ijkofrZr ugha djrsA bl izdkj] ;kph ds fo}ku dkmUlsy ds fuosnu esa lkjoku~ cy gS fd mu ij jftLVªhÑr Mkd }kjk izk:i fooj.k dh rkehy ds vHkko esa] mUgsa tSlk fd 1976 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 8¼4½ esa vuq/;kr gS] ml ij vkifÙk izLrqr djus dk volj gh ugha Fkk] vr,o] vafre fooj.k mudks ml ij vkifÙk djus dk volj iznku fd, fcuk x;k FkkA ¼2013½4 ,l lh lh 280 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 10½ ¼2½ uxj Hkwfe ¼vf/kdre lhek vkSj fofu;eu½ vf/kfu;e] 1976 & /kkjk 9] 8¼3½ rFkk 8¼4½ & uxj Hkwfe ¼vf/kdre lhek vkSj fofu;eu½ fu;e] 1976 & fu-5 & izk:i fooj.k vkSj vafre fooj.k dh rkehy & fu;e 5 ds vuqlkj jftLVªhÑr Mkd }kjk ugha dh xbZ & vafre fooj.k vkifÙk izLrqr djus dk volj iznku fd, fcuk tSlk fd /kkjk 8¼4½ esa vuq/;kr gS] rS;kj fd;k & ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk fd ,slk volj iznku fd;k x;k FkkA ¼iSjk 10½ ¼3½ uxj Hkwfe ¼vf/kdre lhek vkSj fofu;eu½ fu;e] 1976 & fu-5¼2½¼d½¼nks½ & izk:i fooj.k dh rkehy dh jhfr & /kkjd rFkk vU; fgrc) O;fDr;ksa ij jftLVªhÑr Mkd }kjk dh tkuk pkfg, & fcuk ,slh rkehy ds & ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk fd rkehy leqfpr :i ls dh xbZ FkhA ¼iSjk 10½ ¼4½ uxj Hkwfe ¼vf/kdre lhek vkSj fofu;eu½ vf/kfu;e] 1976 & /kkjk 10¼5½ rFkk 10¼6½ & dCtk lksaius ds fy, lwpuk i= & ysus ls badkj djus dk i`"Bkadu & badkj djus dh rkjh[k ls rhl fnol dk le; fn;k tkuk pkfg, & fdarq ,slk le; iznku ugha fd;k x;k & rhl fnol ds Hkhrj ,di{kh; dCtk fd;k x;k & cyiwoZd ,slk dCtk ysus dh dkjZokbZ & /kkjk 10¼5½ ds vuq:ir% vkSj iwfrZ esa gksuk ugha dgk tk ldrkA ¼iSjk 10½ ¼5½ uxj Hkwfe ¼vf/kdre lhek vkSj fofu;eu½ vf/kfu;e] 1976 & /kkjk 10¼5½ rFkk 10¼6½ & ,di{kh; dCtk ysus dh jlhn & dk ewY; & vkns'k i=ksa ij dqN Hkh ugha fd /kkjk 10¼5½ ds v/khu lwpuk i= dc tkjh fd;k x;k & dc rkehy dh xbZ ;k rkehy gksuk ekuk x;k & iapukek rS;kj ugha fd;k x;k & /kkjk 10¼6½ ds vèkhu dkjZokbZ djus ds fy, dksbZ dk;Zokgh vfHkfyf[kr ugha dh xbZ & dCtk jlhn tkjh dj ,slk ,di{kh; dCtk fy;k tkuk & vuqeksfnr ugha fd;k tk ldrk\ ¼iSjk 10½ ¼6½ uxj Hkwfe ¼vf/kdre lhek vkSj fofu;eu½ fujlu vf/kfu;e] 1999 & /kkjk 3 & dk izHkko & izdj.k , vkSj ch esa ,di{kh; dCtk ysus dh jlhnsa & fdarq jkT; }kjk okLrfod dCtk ysuk lkfcr ugha fd;k x;k & Hkwfe /kkjdksa dk okLrfod dCtk gksuk & rglhynkj }kjk jkLrk ds laca/k esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 19-4-2012 ls lkfcr & /kkjk 3 ds izHkko ls vf/kdre lhek dh dk;Zokfg;k¡ mi'kfer gks xb± & [kljk esa vfèkdre lhek dh dk;Zokfg;k¡ yafcr gksus dh izfof"V;k¡ foyqIr djus ds fy, jkT; izkfèkdkjhx.k funsf'krA ¼iSjk 10 ,oa 11½
Arya, J. -- 1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner has prayed that the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ of 1976) in Case No.134/84-85/CA and 32/92-93/B-121, 33/92-93/B-121, 34/92-93/B-121, 35/92-93/B-121, 36/92-93/B-121 against Ram Prasad and Babulal etc. be declared to be abated by force of coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Repeal Act of 1999’) w.e.f. 17.2.2000 by Gazette notification dated 10.3.2000 with further directions to respondents to correct the revenue entries of land situated in survey Nos.155, 156, part of 207, 209, 210, 211, 212, 214, 215, 208 and 213 Kita 11 area 1.769 hectare at village Jagatpura, Tahsil and District Gwalior by deleting the entry in coloumn No.12 to the effect, ‘pendency of ceiling proceedings’.
By amendment as per Court order dated 12.2.2014 amended relief for quashment of possession receipts Annexure P/8 and P/9 has been claimed.
2. One Devi owned different parcels of land in question being his ancestral property. Devi had two sons, namely, Kachchhu and Ramprasad, Kachchhu had three sons, namely, Babulal, Madan Singh and Gokul and two daughters namely, Munnidevi and Bhagwati (for brevity all of them are hereinafter referred to as ‘Babulal’). On the death of Devi, the entire land devolved upon Kachchhu and Ramprasad in the proportion of half share each. On death of Kachchhu, the same devolved upon ‘Babulal’ and the other half share of the ownership of Ramprasad was relinquished by him in favour of Babulal by registered relinquishment deed dated 15.11.2010. As such, Babulal became the successive owner of the entire land involved in this petition. ‘Babulal’ transferred the aforesaid land to petitioner and other partners by registered sale deed dated 9.11.2011.
3. Kachchhu and Ramprasad were required to submit return under the provisions of section 6 of the Act of 1976. Two separate cases were registered against Kachchhu and Ramprasad. Case No.134/84-85/CA (hereinafter referred to as the case ‘A’) was registered against Ramprasad and Case No.122/83-84/CA (hereinafter referred to as the case ‘B’) was registered against Kachchhu.
4. In case ‘A’ Draft statement under section 8(1) of the Act of 1976 was prepared on 25.6.1992 and an area of 6130 sqmt. was proposed to be declared as surplus. On 2.11.1992 final statement was prepared under section 9 of the Act of 1976 declaring 6130 sqmt. land as surplus. Petitioner contends that neither the draft statement nor the final statment was served upon him by registered post as provided for under Rule 5 read with section 8(3) of the Act of 1976. Thereafter, on 18.10.1993 notification under section 10(1) and on 28.12.1993 notification under section 10(3) of the Act of 1976 were issued. The publication in the final Gazette was made on 21.1.1994. According to the petitioner, the procedure prescribed under section 10(1) read with rule 6 of the Act of 1976 was not followed as the copies of the Gazette notifications were not sent to the concerned authorities and holders of the land and also to the other interested persons. After Gazette notification, it is the contention of the petitioner, the alleged notice for taking possession under section 10(5) of the Act of 1976 though was claimed to have been issued on 28.2.1994 to Ramprasad, but the same was never served upon him. As such, Ramprasad neither had notice of draft statement nor final statement nor that of section 10(5) proceedings. He also never delivered possession of the land to the authority voluntarily or otherwise. As regards the fact that respondents have issued ‘possession receipts’ dated 29.3.1994, it is contended that it was mere paper formality in the office as neither any person reached to the spot to take possession nor actually possession was taken. No Panchnama was prepared of the proceedings of taking posse
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
