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.

ORDER

Sanjay Dwivedi, J. - This petition is of 2014. On 22.06.2021, it was directed to be listed for final hearing at motion stage. The record of ceiling case was also called for on 28.10.2022. On 14.03.2023, it is informed to the Court that record has been received in the office of Advocate General, but not available with the counsel for State, therefore, the matter was further adjourned and directed to be fixed for 23.03.2023. Although on 23.03.2023 the matter was taken up but since the Advocates were on strike, therefore, it was further adjourned for 21.04.2023. Thereafter, again it was fixed for 26.04.2023 and on 18.08.2023, since the parties agreed to argue the matter finally, therefore, it was accordingly finally heard.

2. To resolve the controversy involved in the instant case, certain important facts are required to be taken note of, which are as under:-(2.1) The petitioners are the owner of the land bearing Khasra Nos. 82, 85, 145/2 and 146/2, area measuring 1.816 hectares situated in village Purwa, Patwari Halka No.28, Tehsil and District Jabalpur. According to petitioner, they are still cultivating the land.

(2.2) The land was originally owned by the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 & 3, namely, Shri Phoolchand Sen, who died on 11.10.1993, which is evident from Annexure-P/1 and thereafter his legal heirs are in possession of the land and they are cultivating the same.

(2.3) The petitioners have filed Khasra Panshala of the year 1985-86 to 1988-89 showing that the land was originally recorded in the name of Phullu Satia S/o Bhangi and Sarawati Bai wd./o Bhangi. The proceeding of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulations) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1976) was initiated against the original land owner namely, Phoolchand Sen, who submitted return under Section 6 of Act, 1976. In the said return, he has mentioned that the land belongs to the joint hindu family, which comprises of his brother Rajju Satai and mother Saraswati Bai.

(2.4) In pursuance to the return submitted, the report was called for from the concerned Revenue Inspector, who in turn, submitted the same on 03.12.1983 saying that the land belongs to joint hindu family comprising of four coparceners namely, Fullu, Rajju, Sanai S/o Bhangilal and Saraswati Bai wd/o Bhangilal.

(2.5) The competent authority passed an order on 04.02.1984 (Annexure-P/5) on the basis of return submitted under Section 6 of the Act, 1976 holding that since the family consists of four units therefore, entitled to use the land with certain limits and as such, the land measuring 12,160.21 square meters, was declared surplus directing that draft statement be issued under Section 8(1) of the Act, 1976.

(2.6) An appeal was preferred against the said order, but that appeal was dismissed and thereafter vide order dated 15.05.1989 (Annexure-P/6), the competent authority under provisions of the Act, 1976 directed the Tehsildar to take possession of the land. In pursuance to the same, the Tehsildar Nazul, Jabalpur took ex-parte possession of the land on 15.07.1989.

(2.7) In the possession letter, it is shown that the original owner has declined to sign the panchnama and only one witness has signed the same i.e Patwari of concerned village panchayat. The said possession letter is available on record as Annexure-P/7.

(2.8) On 13.07.1989, notice was said to have been issued by the competent authority to Shri Phoolchand and was directed to handover the possession of the land to Tehsildar Nazul within a period of 30 days from the date of notice. But, according to the petitioners, notice dated 13.