Back
2018 Supreme(MP) 165
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
S.C. SHARMA, J.
Ambrish & Another – Petitioners
Vs.
State of M.P. & Another – Respondents
W.P. No.9293 of 2010
Decided On : 08-03-2018
For the Petitioner: Shri. Pramod C. Nair, learned counsel
For the Respondent:Shri. Rohit Mangal, learned Government Advocate
Validity of sale deeds and exemption from Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act are crucial for establishing land ownership.
Headnote:
Quashment of Proceedings - Land Dispute - M.P. Land Revenue Code, Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act - [M.P. Land Revenue Code, Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought quashment of proceedings regarding a land dispute, claiming ownership based on a sale deed from previous owners. They argued that the land was exempt from the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act and should be mutated in their name.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no sale deed to establish the transfer of title from the original owner, and the subsequent sale deeds were invalid. The original owner's petition regarding the land had been turned down. The court dismissed the petitioners' claim for interference.
Issues: Validity of sale deeds, exemption from Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, mutation of land ownership.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that without a valid sale deed, subsequent sale deeds were invalid. The original owner's unsuccessful petition indicated the lack of exemption from the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act. The third party purchaser had no locus standi to claim the land.
Final Decision: The petition for quashment of proceedings was dismissed.
1. The petitioners before this Court have filed the present petition for quashment of proceedings in respect of Case No.391/A-90/C-1 passed by the competent authority in respect of land bearing survey No.1307/2 area-0.395 hectare (14000 Sqft of land) situated at village-Khajrana, Tehsil and District-Indore.
2. The contention of the petitioners is that the land bearing survey No.1307/2, village-Khajrana was under the ownership of one Devkrishna and Devkrishna has sold the land in the year 1972-73 to one Parmanand. Undisputedly, no document in respect of transfer of title has been filed by the petitioner in respect of the alleged sale, which took place in the year 1972-73.
3. It has further been stated that Parmanand has subsequently sold the land to certain other persons and the petitioners have finally purchased the land on 05.04.2004 by a registered sale deed from one Khushiram and Girija Agrawal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued before this Court that an order was also passed under the M.P. Land Revenue Code on 18.07.1978 declaring the petitioner to be Bhumiswami and his main thrust is that prior to commencement of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, the land was already sold by the original owner Devkrishna in 1972-73 to Parmanand, and thereafter, to other persons and finally to the petitioners.
5. He has also brought to the notice of this Court an order dated 27.06.1984 passed by the competent authority under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act and his contention is that Parmanand, who has purchased the land from Devkrishna in year 1972-73, submitted an application under Section 6 of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 and the matter was closed by the competent authority, as the land was less than the ceiling limit i.e. less than 0.450 hectares. He has stated that in light of the aforesaid order, as competent authority has exempted the land Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976, the land has to be mutated in the name of the petitioners, who are bonafide purchaser and the order passed by the competent authority in Case No. 391/A-90/C-1 deserves to be quashed.
6. He has also argued that Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P. & Others v/s Yatiraj Das & Others (L.P.A. No.170/2001) in similar circumstances, where there was no proper notice was given under Section 10(5) to the persons, who were in possession of the land, has quashed the order passed by the competent authority.
7. He has also placed reliance upon a judgment delivered in the case of Ram Prasad & Others v/s State of M.P. & others 2002 (5) M.P.L.J. 417 and his contention is that portion of land reserved in the master-plan for agricultural purposes could not be treated as urban land, and therefore, in the present case, as the land in question is an agricultural land, the order passed by the competent authority deserves to be set aside.
8. Reliance has also been place upon a judgment delivered in the case of Sohan Singh & Others v/s State of M.P. & Others reported in 2008 (3) M.P.L.J. and it has been argued that as possession was not taken from the persons, who were in possession of the land and paper possession was taken without notice to the holder, hence proceedings be set aside.
9. Lastly, reliance has been placed upon a judgment delivered in the case of Amarnath Ashram Trust Society and another v/s Governor of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in AIR 1998 SCC 477. Heavy reliance has been placed upon paragraph-8 of the same judgment. Paragraph-8 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:-
On the question of giving reasons the learned counsel of the State heavily relied upon the decision of this Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bombay vs. Godrej and Boyce (1988 (1) SCR 590). In that case this Court examined the nature and extent of the power of the Government to withdraw from acquisition after issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act. In that case the Sate Government had passed an
