The main legal point established in the judgment is that the possession of the land, as per the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and the Repeal Act, 1999, had been legally taken over by the State Government, and the appellants' claim for continuation of possession could not be upheld.

ORDER PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. : – This intra Court appeal takes exception to order dated 28-2-2006, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1759 of 2006, whereby the petition preferred by the appellants/petitioners has been dismissed.

2. The case of the appellants is that they are Bhumiswami of agriculture land situated in village Karmeta, P.C. No. 26, Settlement No. 497, Tahsil and District Jabalpur in Khasra No. 95 and 200, comprising a total area 1.117 Hectares. The proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “The Act of 1976”), were initiated for declaring the land as surplus. Draft statement was issued on 30-11-1979. As per the order dated 3-3-1982, land admeasuring 64645.70 square meters was declared as surplus. The proceedings attained finality and the name of the State Government was recorded in revenue records.

3. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “The Repeal Act, 1999”) came into force on 18-3-1999 repealing the Act of 1976 with a saving clause in section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999. The appellants on 18-5-2004 made an application under section 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999 read with section 109 and 116 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “The Code of 1959”) before the competent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, Jabalpur, stating that since the physical possession of the land in question remained with the appellants and only name of the State was entered into the Khasra, therefore, such Khasra entries should be corrected and the names of the appellants be re-entered in the revenue record.

4. The application of the appellants was rejected by the competent authority vide order dated 8-9-2005 (Annexure P/2) holding that the land in question has already been vested in the State Government and the possession thereof has been legally taken and the name of the State Government has rightly been recorded, therefore, the application of the appellants does not fall under the provisions of section 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999.

5. The appellants approached this Court by way of writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 8-9-2005 passed by the competent authority. The learned Single Judge did not find any substance in the petition and hence, the same was dismissed. Therefore, the appellants are in this intra Court appeal.

6. We have carefully perused the record.

7. The main ground in the present appeal is that no proceedings under section 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act of 1976 were initiated and the possession of the land was not taken over as per law and, therefore, the proceedings stood abated as per section 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999. The appellants also pleaded that possession of the land are still with them and for all those reasons, they are entitled for continuation on their possession and directions for recording their names as Bhumiswami.

8. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the State has submitted that the possession of the land was taken over on 22-1-1994 by recording a Panchnama in the presence of witnesses. The proceedings initiated under the Act of 1976 were concluded much before coming into force of the Repeal Act, 1999 and, therefore, benefit of section 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999 is not available to the appellants. The decision of the learned Single Judge is in accordance with law and the same does not call for any interference.

9. It was not disputed before the learned Single Judge nor before us that the notification under sub-section (3) of section 10 of the Act of 1976 was issued. Section 10 of the Act of 1976 is being reproduced as under : –

“10. Acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling limit. – (1) As soon as may be after the service of the statement under section 9 on the person concerned, the competent authority shall cause a notification giving the particulars of