Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sanjay Dwivedi, J.
Manoj Patel and others v. State of M.P. and others
Writ Petition No. 4342 of 2022 (Jabalpur); against the order dated 31.1.2022, passed by Collector/Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling; Decided on 3.1.2023
¼1½ Òkjr dk lafoèkku & vuqPNsn 226 & ;kfpdk pyus ;¨X; g¨uk & foyac ,oa ykijokgh & eqdnesackth d¢ çFke pØ esa ;kph d¢ firk }kjk çLrqr ;kfpdk xzg.k dh xà rFkk l{ke çkfèkdkjh d¢ le{k vkosnu çLrqr djus dh Lora=rk çnku dh xà & ;g fookn mlls mRiUu & foyac ,oa ykijokgh d¢ vkèkkj ij ;kfpdk [kkfjt ugha dh tk ldrhA ¼2015½ 5 ,l lh lh 321 ÁHksfnrA ¼iSjk 10½
¼2½ uxj Òwfe ¼vf/kdre lhek v©j fofu;eu½ vfèkfu;e] 1976 & èkkjk 10¼3½] 10¼5½ rFkk 10¼6½ & eŒçŒ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 & èkkjk 35¼2½ & dCtk ysuk & 1976 d¢ vfèkfu;e d¢ vèkhu fnukad 18-8-1988 d¨ dCtk ysuk n'kkZ;k & tcfd 5-7-1994 d¨ èkkjk 10¼5½ d¢ vèkhu lwpuki= tkjh fd;k & 18-8-1988 d¨ dCtk fy;k tk pqdk Fkk rks 5-7-1994 d¨ èkkjk 10¼5½ d¢ vèkhu lwpuki= tkjh djus dh vko';drk gh ugha Fkh & nf'kZr g¨rk gS fd dCtk ysus ls iwoZ ÒwfeLokeh d¨ èkkjk 10¼5½ d¢ vèkhu lwpuki= dÒh tkjh gh ugha fd;k x;k & lafgrk dh èkkjk 35¼2½ d¢ vèkhu ,di{kh; dCtk fy;k x;k & iw.kZr% voSèk D;¨afd 1976 d¢ vfèkfu;e d¢ vèkhu dCtk ysus d¢ fy, ;g çfØ;k fofgr ugha FkhA ¼iSjk 11 ,oa 12½
¼3½ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼eŒçŒ½ & èkkjk 35¼2½ & uxj Òwfe ¼vfèkdre lhek v©j fofu;eu½ vfèkfu;e] 1976 & èkkjk 10¼4½] 10¼5½ rFkk 10¼6½ & 1976 d¢ vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 10¼5½ rFkk 10¼6½ d¢ vèkhu lwpuki= tkjh djus d¢ iwoZ lafgrk dh èkkjk 35¼2½ d¢ vèkhu ,di{kh; dCtk fy;k x;k & iw.kZr% voSèk gS D;¨afd 1976 ds vfèkfu;e d¢ vèkhu dCtk ysus d¢ fy, ;g çfØ;k fofgr ughaA ¼iSjk 11 ,oa 12½
¼4½ uxj Òwfe ¼vfèkdre lhek v©j fofu;eu½ fujlu vfèkfu;e] 1999 & èkkjk 3 rFkk 4 & eŒçŒ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 & èkkjk 35¼2½ & uxj Òwfe ¼vf/kdre lhek v©j fofu;eu½ vfèkfu;e] 1976 & èkkjk 10¼5½ rFkk 10¼6½ & 1976 d¢ vfèkfu;e d¢ vèkhu dk;Zokgh & mi'keu & dCtk ysus ds iwoZ ÒwfeLokeh d¨ 1976 d¢ vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 10¼5½ rFkk 10¼6½ d¢ vèkhu dÒh lwpuki= tkjh ugha fd;k x;k & lafgrk dh èkkjk 35¼2½ d¢ vèkhu ,di{kh; dCtk fy;k tkuk iw.kZr% voSèk & fLFkj ugha j[kk tk ldrk & 1976 d¢ micaèk¨a d¢ vèkhu Òwfe jkT; esa fufgr g¨uk voSèk gS & fujlu vfèkfu;e d¢ ço`Ùk g¨us d¢ i'pkr 1976 d¢ vfèkfu;e d¢ vèkhu vkjaHk dh xbZ dk;Zokgh mi'kfer Ĩf"kr dh tk ldrh gS & l{ke çkfèkdkjh dk vkns'k vikLr & ewy ÒwfeLokeh rFkk mld¢ fofèkd okfjlksa dk uke jktLo vfÒys[k esa çR;kofrZr djus d¢ fy, çR;FkÊx.k funsf'krA ¼2013½ 4 ,l lh lh 380] fjV vihy Øekad 509 lu~ 2017] fjV vihy Øekad 558 lu~ 2016 rFkk fjV vihy Øekad 734 lu~ 2008 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 12 ls 14½
(1) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- maintainability of petition -- delay and laches -- in first round of litigation, writ petition filed by father of petitioner entertained and liberty granted for filing application before competent authority -- present dispute arises therefrom -- petition cannot be dismissed on ground of delay and laches. (2015) 5 SCC 321 distinguished. [Para 10]
(2) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 -- S. 10(3), 10(5) and 10(6) -- M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 -- S. 35(2) -- taking possession -- possession shown to be taken under Act of 1976 on 18.8.1988 -- while notice issued under section 10(5) on 5.7.1994 -- if possession has been taken on 18.8.1988, there was no need to issue notice under section 10(5) on 5.7.1994 -- shows that no notice under section 10(5) was ever issued to land owner before taking possession -- ex parte possession taken under section 35(2) of Code -- purely illegal because that was not procedure prescribed under Act of 1976 for taking possession. [Paras 11 & 12]
(3) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S. 35(2) -- Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 -- S. 10(3), 10(5) and 10(6) -- ex parte possession taken under section 35 (2) of Code prior to issuance of notice under section 10(5) and 10(6) of Act of 1976 -- is purely illegal because that was not procedure prescribed under Act of 1976 for taking possession. [Paras 11 & 12]
(4) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 -- Ss. 3 and 4 -- M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 -- S. 35(2) -- Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 -- S. 10(5) and 10(6) -- proceedings under Act of 1976 -- abatement -- no notice under section 10(5) and 10(6) of Act of 1976 ever issued to land owner prior to taking possession -- ex parte taking of possession under section 35(2) of Code purely illegal -- cannot be sustained -- vesting of land in State under provisions of Act of 1976 is illegal -- after enforcement of Repeal Act, proceedings initiated under Act of 1976 can be declared abated -- order of competent authority set aside -- respondents directed to restore name of original land owner and his legal heirs in revenue record. (2013) 4 SCC 380, Writ Appeal No. 509 of 2017, Writ Appeal No. 558 of 2016 and Writ Appeal No. 734 of 2008 relied on. [Paras 12 to 14]
ORDER
1. Since pleadings are complete, record of ceiling proceeding is also available, therefore, with the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally.
2. By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 31.1.2022 (Annexure-P/9) passed by the competent authority/respondent No.2 whereby the authority rejected their application preferred under Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (for short the ‘Act, 1999’) for declaring the proceeding initiated by the respondents abated in respect of vesting the land of original owner in the State under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short the ‘Act, 1976’).
3. The facts of the case in short are that respondent No.2 for declaring the land of original owners namely Buddhulal Patel and Panchamlal Patel to be surplus, instituted a case under the provisions of the Act, 1976 which got registered as Case No.217/A-90(B-9)/81-82. Since the said proceeding was initiated only against Buddhulal Patel, therefore, he not only objected the same but also denied vesting of land in the State Government saying that he is not holding any surplus land. While objecting to the said proceeding, Buddhulal Patel also said that the land owned by him is an agricultural land and does not fall within the purview of the Act, 1976 and as such, the provisions of the Act, 1976 are not applicable upon his land and, therefore, the proceeding initiated by the respondent/Authority deserves to be dropped. However, the authority after proceeding in the matter, declared the land owned by Buddhulal Patel to the extent of 9785.37 square meters to be surplus; published a draft statement under section 9 of the Act, 1976 and a notification in the official gazette as per the requirement of section 10(1) of the Act, 1976.
(3.1) Thereafter, describing the details of surplus land in letter dated 23.9.1986 (Annexure-P/2), respondent No.4 was directed to carry out the proceeding of taking possession over the land.
(3.2) In pursuance to the instructions given in the letter dated 23.9.1986 (Annexure-P/2), a possession case vide Case No.94/B121/85-86 got registered on 23.9.1986. However, in the said case direction for issuance of notice to the original land owner was given so that further proceeding of taking possession over the surplus land in front of the land owner can be taken and for the said purpose, the case was fixed for 24.01.1987. Thereafter, the original owner of the land namely Buddhulal Patel on 18.08.1988 though appeared before the authority, but since he refused to sign the possession (kabza) letter, therefore, as per the provisions of section 35(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (in short the ‘Act, 1959’), ex parte possession of the surplus land was taken over by the respondents.
(3.3) As per the petitioners, the proceeding of taking possession over surplus land was on different mode and provisions of other statute and as such, two notices on different dates i.e. 24.1.1987 and 16.8.1988 got issued. As per the petitioners, order dated 5.2.1992 passed in Case No.16/B-121/1991-92 reveals that the proceeding for taking possession over the surplus land which was already declared surplus in Case No.217/B-90(B-9)/81-82 again initiated in which possession warrant was also issued. As per the petitioners, registration of possession case again in the year 1992 and issuance of warrant of possession for taking possession over the land measuring 9785.37 square meters indicate that possession over the land on earlier occasion had not been taken whereas the land was recorded in the name of the State Government without there being any proceeding of possession as required under the provisions of the Act, 1976.
(3.4) In the year 1998, when one of the land owners namely Panchamlal died, Buddhulal Patel came to know about the fact that the land in question has bee
Failure to issue mandatory notices under the Urban Land Act invalidates state claims of land possession, allowing petitioners to retain ownership rights based on ongoing lawful occupancy.
The court established that proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act abate if possession is not taken before the Repeal Act, but claims can be dismissed on grounds of delay.
Delay in asserting rights under land ceiling regulation impacts maintainability of writ petitions; the court dismisses claims due to laches but permits civil recourse.
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
