Decided on April 10,2018

State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Respondents


Vandana Kasrekar, J. - (1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 30.04.2007 passed by respondent No. 3.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner of land bearing Khasra No. 9/1 admeasuring to 1.618 hectares situated at Village Madhotal, Tehsil and District Jabalpur. The said land is an agricultural land and is undiverted land. The petitioner was, thereafter, received an information that the land is being taken by the State Government under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The petitioner was required to submit a statement before the Competent Authority i.e. respondent No. 3. The petitioner submitted his return under Section 6 of the Act mentioning the particulars of the land and specifying that it is an undiverted land. After submission of the return under Section 6 of the Act, the petitioner was waiting for further proceedings, but no action has been taken under Section 9 of the Act. Thereafter, an order was passed on 15.07.1983 declaring the land of the petitioner as surplus. Thereafter, a notice under Section 10(5) of the Act was published directing the petitioner to surrender the possession and if he fails to do so, then the authorities will proceed to take the possession under Section 10(6) of the Act. The petitioner, thereafter, raised an objection against the exparte order dated 15.07.1983, as no intimation or notice was given to the petitioner before passing the order nor the statement as required under Section 9 of the Act was passed. Being aggrieved by the order dated 15.07.1983, the petitioner has preferred an application under Section 33 of the Act on 26.02.1997 along with an application for condonation of delay. The same was dismissed vide order dated 21.10.1998 on the ground of delay. Against the order dated 21.10.1998, the petitioner has preferred a Writ Petition No. 2604/1999. The said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 23.06.1999. Against the order dated 23.06.1999, the petitioner preferred a SLP before the Supreme Court. The Apex Court vide order dated 06.12.1999 has passed an order of status quo in favour of the petitioner. The said civil appeal was disposed of by the Apex Court vide order dated 22.02.2005 and remanded the matter back to the High Court for a decision in accordance with law after giving proper opportunity to the parties for placing their respective cases before the High Court. Further it has been observed in the said order that the Court is not expressed any opinion on the question as to whether Sub Section 4 of Section 3 will apply to the fact of the case in view of the fact that this appeal was pending before the Apex Court when the repeal Act came into force.
(3.) After remanding of the case, the High Court was pleased to pass an order dated 16.08.2005 directing that in similar matter, the Court has remanded the cases before the competent authority to find out whether the possession has been taken over as provided under Section 10 of the Act and if the possession has not been taken over, the Section 4 of the repeal Act of 1999 would come into play and the entire proceedings will stands abated. Before the competent authority, the petitioner has point out that the provisions of Section 10(5) of the Act rest on other proceeding for the purpose of land acquisition, therefore, they ought to have been considered while acquiring the land. While deciding the matter, the competent authority is required to see whether a notice under Section 10(5) of the Act was duly served on the land owner. After the direction issued by this Court, as the respondents have failed to comply with the same, the petitioner, therefore, filed a Contempt Petition No. 1307/2006 before this Court. In the said contempt petition, the respondents have filed a report stating that the possession of the land in question has already been taken. Thus, on the basis of this report submitted by the respondents, the contempt proceeding was dropped giving liberty to the petitioner to assail the order of competent authority in accordance with law. Being aggrieved by the said report i.e. Annexure-P/8, the petitioner has filed the present petition.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.