The court held that a writ petition challenging a notice after 26 years is time-barred, as prior proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act had attained finality.

ORDER :

The petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the notice dated 29.01.2010 (Annexure-P/1), whereby the Additional Collector & Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (in short ULCR Act) directed them to remove the encroachment from the land bearing Survey No.310 area 0.509 hectare, Village – Tejpur Gadbadi, District – Indore.

2. Vide order dated 18.03.2015, writ petition was allowed by the Writ Court by holding that the Kabza Panchnama dated 27.02.1984 is merely a paper possession, made only for the purpose of completing the paper formalities, hence, now the possession cannot be taken from the petitioner. accordingly, impugned notice dated 09.01.2010 was set aside.

3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the State of Madhya Pradesh preferred W.A. No.125 of 2017. Vide order dated 10.10.2017, the Division Bench of this Court has held that the learned Single Judge did not decide the preliminary objection raised by the State Government in respect of the inordinate delay of 26 years in filing the writ petition, hence, set aside the order dated 18.03.2015 and remanded the matter back; firstly to decide the issue of limitation, then the writ petition be decided on merit in accordance with law.

4. Petitioner No.1 – Kasturi Bai was the joint owner of the ancestral properties including the land of Survey No.310, area 0.509 hectare. The petitioner No.2 is the grand son of the petitioner No.1. The competent authority, after conducting necessary enquiry prepared a draft statement under Section 8(3) of the ULCR Act and sent it to the land owners for submitting objections, if any. After confirming the draft statement, the land measuring 0.359 hectares of senior No. 310 was declared as surplus land. Smt. Kasturi Bai did not prefer any appeal against the said order confirming the draft statement. Thereafter, she filed an application under Section 20 of the ULCR Act for grant of exemption, but the same was rejected by the State Government vide order dated 27.09.1983. Thereafter, a notice under Section 9 of the ULCR Act along with a final statement was issued by the competent authority on 15.05.1982.

5. After the dismissal of the application filed under Section 20 of the ULCR Act, a notification under Section 10(1) of the ULCR Act was published in the gazette on 10.10.1983 followed by the notification under Section 10(3) of the ULCR Act published on 14.02.1984, whereby vacant surplus land stood vested with the State Government.

6. The competent authority issued notice dated 14.02.1984 under Section 10(5) of the ULCR Act directing Kasturi Bai and other land owners to hand over the possession to the Collector within thirty days. The Additional Tehsildar, Indore was also directed to take possession of the land. According to the respondents/State, the possession of the surplus land was taken on 26.02.1984. The Panchnama dated 27.02.1984 was drawn ex parte as the owner of the land was not present. According to the respondents, notice dated 14.02.1984 was served by way of affixation.

7. Smt.Kasturi Bai preferred an appeal under Section 33 of the ULCR Act against the notification dated 14.02.1984, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 18.07.1985 in Appeal No.225/84-85. therefore, Kasturi Bai knew that the possession of the land had been taken on 27.02.1984. Smt. Kasturi Bai along with petitioner No.2 unauthorizedly encroached the surplus land, therefore, the impugned notice dated 29.01.2010 was issued to them, which is under challenge in this petition.

8. The petitioners assailed the notice on the ground that possession of the surplus land had never been taken from them. The name of the State Government was mutated without notice to them, therefore, now vide impugned notice they cannot be dispossessed. The petitioners sought the relief that the notice dated 29.01.2010 be quashed and the cost be awarded in their favour. The petitioners have not challen