Back
VIVEK RUSIA
Kasturibai – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
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; fi
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.
Serious disputed facts on Section 10(5) notice service and physical possession taking under ULC Act prevent writ determination of abatement under Repeal Act Section 4; relegation to civil suit approp....
The appellants, a series of so called bona fide Purchasers, have kept this lis alive against the State Government and those 83 allottees, who were allotted their lands out of such excess land vested ....
Proceedings issued under the Urban Land Ceiling Act against a deceased declarant are null and void; possession must be established prior to claiming surplus land.
Delay in asserting rights under land ceiling regulation impacts maintainability of writ petitions; the court dismisses claims due to laches but permits civil recourse.
Timely objection is essential in ceiling proceedings; long delay in seeking judicial intervention leads to barring of relief due to laches, irrespective of alleged possession.
plain language of sub-section (5) of Section 10 means and envisages a notice in writing in the form of an order to surrender or make over the possession to the State. Sub-Section (5) notice is not in....
Notice under Section 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is issued to him to surrender such possession to the State Government, or the authorized officer or the competent autho....
The court established that proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act abate if possession is not taken before the Repeal Act, but claims can be dismissed on grounds of delay.
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
