The main legal point established in the judgment is that land mainly used for agricultural purposes cannot be considered 'vacant land' under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, and the possession of the land is crucial for the proceedings under the Act.

A.K. Shrivastava, J.

1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the Petitioners are seeking following reliefs

1. An appropriate writ, direction or order be passed quashing all the proceedings, orders and notices issued and passed by the Competent Officer, the appellate orders and the review order of Respondent No. 2 and it be declared that the Petitioners' land being mainly agricultural land cannot be made subject-matter of Urban Ceiling Act of 1976.

2. Such other writ or direction may be given and passed as thought fit.

2. The facts in nutshell are that proceedings under Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") were initiated against the holder Smt. Shanti Bai whose LRs are the present Petitioners. Vide order-sheet dated 24-12-1983 the competent authority directed to issue draft statement in pursuance to Section 8(1) of the Act and accordingly 22386.50 square meter land of Khasra No. 80 was declared surplus. On 16-10-1984 the competent authority heard the objections of the holder Smt. Shanti Bai raising inter-alia objections that she is having five units in her family and the land in question which has been declared as surplus is an agricultural land and is under her self-cultivation and even on the appointed date 9-9-1976. The competent authority vide order dated 16-10-1984 rejected those objections and directed to issue final statement under Section 9 of the said Act. Ultimately, according to the Respondents, the possession of the land in question was obtained on 24-10-1989. The appeal which was filed by the Petitioners before the Commissioner was also dismissed on 12-3-1986 (Annexure P-8). Hence, this petition has been filed by the Petitioners assailing the order passed by the competent authority, appellate authority and also the Notification issued under Section 10(1) of the said Act.

3. It has been put forth by Shri R.K. Verma, learned Counsel for the Petitioners that looking to the definition of "vacant land" as envisaged under Section 2(q) of the Act the land which is used for agriculture purpose will not be included in an urban agglomeration. By inviting my attention to Annexures P-1 and P-2 which are the copies of the revenue record (khasras) of the year 1975 to 1979, 1981-82 and 1982-83 respectively it has been submitted that the holder Smt. Shanti Bai has been mentioned as Bhumiswami and the crop of gram etc. has also been mentioned in the entire Survey No. 80 area 2.388 Hectare and has further submitted that no counter-document has been filed along with the return in order to hold that land was not being used for agricultural purpose and hence it has been put forth by learned Counsel that the Act is not at all applicable in the present case. It has been then contended by him that a certificate has also been issued by the office of the Joint Director, Nagar and Gramin Kshetra Niyojan, Jabalpur stating in it that the land in question is being used for agricultural purpose.

4. By inviting my attention to the order-sheets dated 28-6-1985 onwards of the competent authority it has been put forth by learned Counsel that the matter was adjourned by the competent authority from time to time to obtain possession but the possession of the land was never taken from the Petitioner and ultimately on 24-12-1991 the record was sent to the Appellate Authority and earlier to this date also on 8-10-1989 the record was sent to the appellate authority but the fact remains as such that possession was never taken from the holder of the land.

5. Learned Counsel by inviting my attention to the order-sheet dated 24-2-1993 passed in this petition has submitted that while admitting the petition interim order was passed on LA. No. 1296/1993 directing the Respondents not to give effect to the notice given by them to the Petitioners under Section 10(5) of the Act (Annexure P-9) until further orders and this order has never been vacated and is still in fo