1. Invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of the order Annexure P-10 dated 21.2.2013, passed by the competent authority with direction to abate the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act; and the respondents be restrained to dispossess the petitioners, and also to remove the name of the State Government, with further direction to record the name of the petitioners in revenue records, this petition has been preferred.

2. The facts born out from the pleadings are that Smt. Godawari Bai was the holder of the Khasra No.87 and 228/3 area 8536.32 square meters of village Purwa, Settlement No. 162, Patwari Halka No. 28, Tahsil and District Jabalpur. By an order dated 4.6.1981 passed by the competent authority the said land has been declared in surplus vesting in the State Government as per section 10(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter after referred to as 'the Principal Act'). After final notification, proceedings under section 10(5) of the Act were initiated by the competent authority on 26.7.1986 and by issuing the notice delivery of possession of surplus land within thirty days was directed otherwise Tahsildar (Nazul) may take possession in accordance with law. It is the contention of the petitioner that Godawari Bai was died on 13.9.1982, however notice issued under section 10(5) by the competent authority in the name of dead person could not be served on her. As per service report, notice was received by one Mukesh Dubey, who was not having any blood relation with the deceased or the family of petitioners. It is said, he was not the person in possession of the surplus land. It is urged the notice issued in the name of a dead person is void, however showing service of the said notice on dead person delivery of possession is invalid. It is further contended, no notice was issued or served on the petitioners who are the legal heirs of the holder and in possession of the land. Thus plea taken by the respondents that possession has been taken from the holder or from the person in possession is factually incorrect and against the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Hari Ram [(2013)4 SCC 280]. The said judgment has been followed by this Court in the case of Thamman Chand Koshta v. State of M.P. and others - Writ Petition No. 407/2014 decided on 7.4.2015. Thus, as per the provisions contained in section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter after referred to as 'the Repeal Act'), if possession has not taken on the date of commencement, all the proceedings pending before the Competent Authority under the Principal Act would abate. Learned senior counsel has referred the original record produced by the State Government and also the findings of the order impugned with regard to possession, thereby petitioners were found in actual physical possession though wrongly classified as unauthorized. Thus looking to the aforementioned facts, petitioners are in possession of the land in question and as per Repeal Act, these proceedings stood abate, however appropriate directions may be issued.

3. Per contra, learned Government Advocate representing the respondent-State has argued with vehemence, that after vesting of the land Competent Authority had issued the notice dated 26.7.1986 to Godawari Bai (land holder), which was served on Mukesh Dubey on 9.9.1986, who might be in the family or grand son of the deceased. As the possession was not voluntarily surrendered within the time specified, therefore, exparte possession has taken by the Naib Tahsildar (Nazul) on 19.8.1988 in front of two witnesses. However, the arguments as advanced by petitioner to abate the proceedings in the context of the Repeal Act is of no consequence. Learned Government Advocate placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Manohar Kumari Daga and others v. St