Failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of possession under Section 10(5) and 10(6) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 leads to the abatement of proceedings under the Repeal Act.

J.K. Maheshwari, J.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:-

(i) To hold that the respondents did not comply with the procedure laid down under Section 10 of the Act of 1979.

(ii) To set aside the impugned order dated 27-12-2013 (Annexure P/10).

(iii) To direct the respondents to restore name of present petitioner in the revenue records.

(iv) To grant any other relief deemed just and proper in the facts circumstances of the case.

(v) cost may be awarded.

2. As per the facts pleaded, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was the holder of the land of Khasra Nos. 9, 10, 13/2 and 14 situated in village Garha, Dist. Jabalpur. The grievance of the petitioner is that the proceedings as drawn under Section 10 (5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter it shall be called as "the Act") to take over the possession is not in accordance with law. However, the petitioner remained in possession of the land on the date of commencement of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, (hereinafter it be referred as "the Repeal Act"). In such circumstances, ceiling proceedings shall be deemed to abate and his name may be directed to record in revenue papers. But ignoring the same, the application filed by him to record his name has been rejected by an order dated 27/12/2013 (Annexure P/10), however, quashing the same, this petition may be allowed.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has strenuously urged that looking to the documents Annexures P/2, P/3 and P/4, the possession has not been taken as per the procedure prescribed, however, his possession would be deemed to be continuous on the date of commencement of the Repeal Act. It is submitted that as per Section 10(5) of the Act minimum 30 days notice is required to be served to holder for delivery of possession, thereafter, possession may be taken by respondents in the light of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Kumar Pathak & ors. vs. State of M.P. passed in W.A. No. 734/08 decided on 18-07-2012, otherwise the proceeding shall stand abate on account of non-compliance of the mandatory provisions. Against the said judgment, Special Leave Petition No. 28344/2013 and S.L.P. No. 28345/2013 were preferred which were dismissed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. The reliance has also been placed on the judgments of the apex court in the cases of Vinayak Kashinath Shilkar Vs. Dy. Collector and Competent Authority and Others, (2012) 4 SCC 718 and State of U.P. Vs. Hari Ram, (2013) 4 SCC 280. In view of the aforesaid, it is urged that if possession has not been taken following the mandatory provisions of the Act then possession of the petitioner should be deemed to be continued on the date of commencement of the Repeal Act and rejection of his application to record his name in the revenue papers by order dated 27/12/2013 (Annexure P/10) is illegal, and liable to be quashed.

4. The respondents by filing the return has not disputed the documents Annexures P/2, P/3 and P/4. It is merely contended that as per order passed by the competent authority the notice to take over the possession was issued on 28-06-1989 fixing the date 15-07-1989 to take the possession. On the said date the respondents were not present to deliver the possession, however proceeding ex parte against them, possession was taken. As the intimation to take over the possession was not given to competent authority, however another notice Annexure P/3 was issued on 24.2.1992 and possession was taken on 03-03-1992 vide Annexure P/4. In view of the aforesaid, it is urged that on taking possession on land by the State Government in the year 1989, however, challenge to it in the year of 2014 is belated and also against public interest therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner may be dismissed.

5. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and looking to the relief(s), as prayed for