The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding nature of a decree passed by a competent court, the admission by the State that the previous owners were not the true owners, and the vitiation of proceedings due to lack of notice to the true owners.

JUDGMENT SUBODH ABHYANKAR, J. : – This appeal has been preferred under section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam 2005 against the order dated 9-3-2022 passed in W. P. No. 4614/2022; whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed.

2. Facts of the case, as noted by the learned Judge of the writ Court in paragraphs 2 and 3 are as hereunder : –

“2. Lands involved in this case i.e. survey No. 318/1 admeasuring 1.359 hectares and survey No. 319/1 admeasuring 0.314 hectares thus total 1.673 hectares were owned by two real brothers Badri Singh and Chandra Singh. According to the petitioner under the family arrangement, these lands were in possession of his mother Bhawar Bai and petitioner himself since 1977-1978 which is evident from the entries of Khasra for the year 1977-78. Later on, the petitioner and his mother instituted Civil Suit No. 119-A/1979 against Badri Singh and Chandra Singh which was disposed of vide judgment and decree dated 3-4-1984 by way of compromise as the Badri Singh and Chandra Singh have admitted the ownership of the petitioner and his mother. Thereafter the name of the petitioner and his mother came to be mutated in the revenue record for survey No. 318/1 and 319/1 in the year 1987-88. 3. On account of the enforcement of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (For short, the ‘ULC Act’), Badri Singh and Chandra Singh had filed a statement under section 6 in the year 1979 showing the aforesaid lands as vacant land. Upon and pursuant of the statement, a notification under section 10(1) of the Ceiling Act, 1976 dated 30-7-1986 was published by respondent No. 2 by recording the name of Badri Singh and Chandra Singh. Thereafter, a notification under section 10(3) of the ULC Act was published on 14-3-1990 contending that the land in question was deemed to have vested in the State Government on 31-3-1990. According to the petitioner the aforesaid notifications under sections 10(1) and 10(3) of the ULC Act were published in contravention of revenue records which reflects the name of the petitioner and his mother as owner. No opportunity of hearing was given to them in ceiling proceedings by the competent authority. In consequences of aforesaid notifications issued under section 10(3) of the ULC Act, respondent No. 2 issued a notice for taking possession under section 10(5) of ULC Act on 18-8-1993 to Badri Singh and Chandra Singh. Since Badri Singh and Chandra Singh were not the true owners, therefore, any proceeding initiated pursuant to the notice dated 18-8-1993 are vitiated. The Tehsildar had taken ex parte possession on 14-10-1993 upon drawing a panchnama and reported to the competent authority. The petitioner and his mother were Bhumiswami and in possession of Survey Nos. 318/1 and 319/1 were not noticed at any stage before 31-3-2000 while respondent No. 2 has ordered for correction of entry in revenue records due to vesting of land under the ceiling proceedings. According to the petitioner compensation assessment proceedings culminated into an order dated 25-5-2000 wherein respondent No. 2 has assessed the compensation amount but has not paid the compensation to the petitioner, even the Badri Singh and Chandra Singh did not accept the possession.”

3. After appreciating the documents filed by the petitioner on record, the learned Judge, without issuing notice to the respondents, has dismissed the writ petition in limine which is assailed by the petitioner in this writ appeal. During the course of hearing the respondent/State was also directed to file reply to the petition and State’s reply is also available on record.

4. Shri Aniket Naik, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as the learned Judge of the writ Court has not appreciated the documents filed on record in their proper perspective and without even waiting for the reply from the State Government, the petition