IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT ANANT RAM TIWARI VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRDESH AND OTHERS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appearance:

Shri Siddharth Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Kamal Singh Baghel, G.A for respondent.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RESERVED ON : 15.01.2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 21.01.2026 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER

Present petition is filed seeking following reliefs :-

(i) Summon the records of the case;

(ii) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned orders passed under Section 8, 9 and 10 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, passed in Case No. 245/A-9/B-9/83-84 and all the proceedings under the above Act of1976 in relation to the disputed land, as illegal and void;

(iii) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in question;

(iv) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the petitioner to be owner and person in possession of the land in question;

(v) any other appropriate writ, order or direction which in the esteemed opinion of this Hon’ble Court is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be issued: in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice;

(vi) Cost of instant petition may also kindly be awarded infavour of the petitioner.

2. It is contended that petitioners are in actual peaceful possession cultivating the land in question and, therefore, the proceedings initiated pursuant to Urban Land & Ceiling Act by the respondent/ authority which in view of section 4 has been repealed under the Repealed Act. It is contended that appropriate directions may be issued as per prayer clause.

3. The main contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the original owner Late Niranjan Prasad Awasthy died in the year 1994. Prior to that Laxmi Bai w/o Late Niranjan Prasad Awasthy challenged the notice under section 10(5) of the Act by filing an appeal under section 33 of the Act of 1976 before the Court of Commissioner. It is also contended that on 27.03.2000, the Court of Commissioner dismissed the appeal. The land in question has been peaceful possession of the original land owner and the petitioner. It is further submitted that the State of Madhya Pradesh has notified the Repeal Act on 17.02.2000 which provides for abatement of all the pending proceedings under the Principal Act of 1976. In the year 2005, the competent authority rejected the application under section 4 of the Repeal Act. On 31.05.2005, the competent authority rejected the application under section 4 dehors the provisions of Repeal Act without assigning any reason as it has not discussed whether the process under section 10 was followed as per the manner prescribed or not and, therefore, he has contended that neither provision of section 10(5) nor section 10(6) is complied with as notice under section 10(5) and 10(6) of the Ceiling Act was necessary before taking the possession and de facto possession is necessary dejure is not necessary and, therefore, the issues, viz (i) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case any notice was issued to the petitioner by the respondent/authority under section 10(5) as well as section 10(6) of the Act; (ii) whether notice was served upon the petitioners and (iii) whether actual possession is taken-over by the respondent/authority or not, are the question which are required to be considered by this court. 4. Shri Siddharth Sharma, counsel for the petitioners has submitted chronology of events for better appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, which is as under :-

S.No. Date Particula