Writ petitions challenging long-concluded land ceiling proceedings are barred by the doctrine of delay and laches. Revenue records reflecting the vesting of land, maintained for decades without challenge, carry a presumption of correctness that cannot be overturned based on stale claims of non-possession.

ORDER

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief:-

(i) Call for the record of the case.

(ii) Declare that the petitioners are Bhumiswami and entitled for recording of their names in the revenue records.

(iii) Restrain the respondents from taking possession from the petitioners.

(iv) Issue any other writ/writs, order/orders and direction/directions as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.

(v) Cost of the petition be awarded in favour of the petitioners.

2. In short the facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner and in possession of the disputed land. The petitioner is the only successor and legal heir of her father Babau Yadav. The disputed land was originally recorded in the name of Babau Yadav, who was in possession of the said land. Babau Yadav was the owner of disputed land. The Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short Act of 1976) initiated ceiling proceeding Case No.694/A-90/B-9/76-77 against Babau Yadav in respect of his agricultural lands situated at Khasra No.17/5 area 1.283 hectares and Khasra No.57/4 area 0.170 hectares, Settlement No.164, Patwari Circle No.24/2, village Polipathar, Tahsil and District Jabalpur and asked the petitioner to submit the objection. Objection submitted by Babau Yadav that since the lands are agricultural lands, it cannot be declared as surplus. However, on 10.12.1979 (Annexure P/1), an area of land i.e. 12218.81 sq.mt. was declared as surplus and as per the provisions of Section 10(3) of the Act of 1976 the notification was issued and published in the Gazette. It is submitted that no notice under Section 10(5) of the Act of 1976 was issued to Babau Yadav or to the petitioner or her mother.

3. It is submitted that against the order declaring the land in question as surplus and vesting of lands in the Government under Section10(3 ) of the Act of 1976, petitioner’s father Babau Yadav filed an appeal under Section 33 of the Act of 1976 before the respondent No.2- Commissioner, Jabalpur. In the meanwhile, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (For short 'Repeal Act') came into force in the State of M.P.. Therefore, respondent No.2-Commissioner, Jabalpur has passed the an order dated 23.07.2000 (Annexure P/2) observing that by operation of the Repeal Act, the entire proceedings stood abated. Thereafter, the father of the petitioner Babau Yadav filed an application for recording his name, but the respondent No. 4 has passed the order dated 14.06.2001 (Annexure P/3) holding that since alike matters are pending adjudication before the High Court, therefore, till the decision in the said matters is arrived, no order in respect of recording of the name can be passed and dismissed the application.

4. It is averred in the petition that petitioner and her mother Summari Bai had filed an application Annexure P-4 dated 16.03.2004 before the respondent No.3, but no order was passed on the said application nor the name of the State Government has been deleted from the revenue records. On 21.05.2011, mother of the petitioner Summari Bai died and consequently, now the petitioner is the sole successor and legal representative of original owner Babau Yadav.

5. It is averred in the petition that the lands of the petitioner are agricultural land and hence they are not covered under provisions of the Act of 1976. It is submitted that the competent authority has not recorded any evidence for deciding the case or for declaration of vacant l