Back
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
Shyam Sunder – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Dharmadhikari, J:-- 1. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.
This writ appeal under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchha Nayayalaya (Khand Nyaypith Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam 2005 has been filed by the appellants assailing the order dated 18.3.2024 passed in W.P.No.9436/2012 whereby the petition filed by the present appellant was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case is that the appellants herein had purchased the below mentioned property by way of registered sale deed from Kumari Sharda Raje D/o Maharaja Tukoji Rao Pawar, erstwhile ruler of Indore. The description plot, area, survey numbers, date of sale deeds are as under :--
Appellant No.1: Plot No.48, South Avenue, admeasuring 3885 sq. feet, comprised in Survey No.56 of Village – Tejpur Gadbadi, purchased vide registered sale deed dated 28.3.1997.
Appellant No.2: Plot No.49, South Avenue, admeasuring 3150 sq. feet, comprised in Survey No.56 of Village – Tejpur Gadbadi, purchased vide registered sale deed dated 4.4.1997.
Appellant No.3: Plot No.73, South Avenue, admeasuring 3500 sq. feet, comprised in Survey No.99/1 of Village – Tejpur Gadbadi, purchased vide registered sale deed dated 4.12.1996.
Appellant
The court ruled that actual physical possession must be established for the State to validly claim ownership under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, and procedural requirements for n....
Possession of land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act must be established lawfully; mere vesting does not equate to possession, especially post-repeal.
The court held that statutory compliance under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act is mandatory for valid dispossession, emphasizing that mere vesting does not equate to possession.
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.
Failure to issue notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act to possessors renders dispossession unlawful and results in the abatement of proceedings under Section 4 of the Repealing Act.
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
