Non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 led to the abatement of the proceedings initiated under the Act, 1976.

ORDER

1. Since record of the ceiling case is available and learned counsel for the parties are ready to argue the matter, therefore, it is heard finally.

2. By the instant petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking following relief:-

"(i) Set aside the order dated 16.03.2018 (Annexure P/2).

(ii) Record the name of the Petitioner in the Revenue Entries in relation to Old Khasra No.95, New Khasra No.23 of Area 0.49 Hectare and New Khasra No.25 of Area 0.94 Hectare, Total Area : 1.43 Hectare situated at Mauja Chaukital, Tehsil and District Jabalpur (MP).

(iii) That, any other relief which is suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the Petitioner may also be granted in the interest of justice,

(iv) That, the cost of this petition may also be awarded to the Petitioner."

3. Laconically, the facts leading to filing the instant petition are that the petitioner was bhoomi-swami of the agricultural land bearing old Khasra No.95, new Khasra No.23 of area 0.49 hectare and new Khasra No.25 of area 0.94 hectare total area 1.43 hectare situated at Mauja Chaukital, Tahsil and District Jabalpur. As per the petitioner, he is still in possession over the said land. The petitioner submitted a statement under Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for brevity the 'Act, 1976') before the Competent Authority as the Authority declared 32491.22 square meter land as surplus. Thereafter, in a ceiling case registered as case No.647/A-90 (B-9)/1981-82, a draft statement was issued as per the provisions of Section 8(1) of the Act, 1976 inviting objections. The petitioner submitted his objection on 08.07.1985 then finally on 20.07.1989, the Competent Authority passed an order considering the objection raised by the petitioner and declared 32491.22 square meter land as surplus and directed that notice be issued under Section 9 of the Act, 1976 then on 22.07.1989, notice of Section 9 was issued. Notice dated 23.10.1993 issued under Section 10(5) of the Act, 1976 is also available on record addressed to the petitioner to handover the possession of the land in question within 30 days otherwise ex-parte possession would be taken over. Letter related to possession over the land is also available on record but the same is undated.

4. Thereafter, a petition i.e. W.P. No. 16538/2011 in the shape of Public Interest Litigation was filed raising grievance therein that thousands of villagers have not been noticed and without intimating them, panchanamas were prepared in the office of the respondents and proceedings under the Act, 1976 have been concluded showing that the lands of the petitioners have been vested in the State Government declaring the same surplus and accordingly, revenue records were also corrected. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.09.2011 disposed of the petition granting liberty to the petitioners therein to approach the Competent Authority for ventilation of their grievances. It was further observed that if the petitioners or the aggrieved persons approached the Competent Authority by filing a representation within 30 days then the Competent Authority would consider and decide their grievance expeditiously. Thereafter, the present petitioner filed a representation dated 18.11.2011 before the Competent Authority raising his grievance and the Competent Authority has passed the order dated 16.03.2018 (Annexure-P/2) which is impugned saying that the Authority has no competence to consider the claim of the petitioner for returning his land as there was no provision empowering the Competent Authority under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (for brevity the 'Repeal Act, 1999') and as such, rejected the representation of the petitioner.

5. The petitioner, therefore, filed the instant petition challenging the order impugned passed by the Competent Authority mainly on the ground that it was improper on the