Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 944 (MP)

GOKUL PRASAD v. STATE OF M. P.

2002-10-08

ARUN MISHRA

body2002
ORDER Arun Mishra, J. Petitioner in the instant case is assailing the order P. 1 passed by competent authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Jabalpur on 31-12-1988 after 14 years of passing of the same. Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that late Smt. Heera Bai was the owner of 4.46 acres of agricultural land situated at village Purva. The land in question for past few decades is used for agricultural purpose. Petitioner earns his livelihood from selling vegetables. Under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the proceedings were initiated which continued for 8 years and culminated in the impugned order dated 31-12-88 declaring 14,870.66 sq.m. land as surplus. The change in the record and possession on paper were brought about in October, 1994. Petitioner submits that master plan scheme came into force in the year 1980. No master plan was in force when the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 came into force, thus, the land in question cannot be subjected to the provisions of the Act, 1976. Another submission raised by the petitioner is that although there has been vesting of the land in question under the provisions of the Act, 1976 but the actual possession continued with the petitioner. Thus, the proceedings deserve to be set aside. Shri G.P. Kekre, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that master plan came into force in the year 1980. Thus, the impugned order is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. The second submission raised is that as the possession of the petitioner continues the impugned order be set aside owing to the provisions of section 3/4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. Firstly, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of the laches in filing the same. The order P. 1 was passed, by the competent authority in the year 1988 and the same cannot be allowed to be challenged after 14 years. Another ground not to entertain the writ petition is that land stands vested in the State Govt. as per own averment made by the petitioner and possession of the State is reflected in the revenue papers as apparent from reading of para 5.4 of the petition wherein it has been mentioned that the change in the record and possession on paper were brought about in October, 1994. as per own averment made by the petitioner and possession of the State is reflected in the revenue papers as apparent from reading of para 5.4 of the petition wherein it has been mentioned that the change in the record and possession on paper were brought about in October, 1994. Meaning thereby that the possession of the State is reflected in the revenue papers. Petitioner has not filed any document to show that he is in possession of the land in question. The Khasras which have been filed are of the year 1972 to 1974 and 1982 to 1984. No khasra has been placed on record after passing of the impugned order. The submission raised by the petitioner that there was no master plan as on the date on which the Act, 1976 came into force and was prepared in the year 1990 cannot be accepted as the submission advanced is based on the decision of Smt. Atia Mohammadi Begum Vs. State of U.P. and others[OVERRULED], which has been overruled partly in The State of A.P. and ors Vs. N. Audikesava Reddy and ors, . In which it has been laid down that lawful master plan, even if prepared after commencement of Act has to be taken into consideration for determining the surplus land. Reliance has also been placed on section 3/4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. Section 3 of the Act deals with savings which reads as under: 3. Savings. - (1) The repeal of the principal Act shall not affect- (a) the vesting of any vacant land under sub-section (3) of section 10, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority; (b) the validity of any order granting exemption under sub-section (1) of section 20 or any action taken thereunder, notwithstanding any judgment of any Court to the contrary; (c) any payment made to the State Government as a condition for granting exemption under sub-section (1) of section 20. (2) Where- (a) any land is deemed to have vested in the State Government under sub-section (3) of section 10 of the Principal Act but possession of which has not been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority; and (b) any amount has been paid by the State Government with respect to such land, the such land shall not be restored unless the amount paid, if any, has been refunded to the State Government. It is clear from the reading of section 3 contains savings clause the repeal of the principal Act shall not affect the vesting of any vacant land under sub-section (3) of section 10, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority and where any land is deemed to have vested in the State Government under sub-section (3) of section 10 of the principal Act but possession of which has not been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf and if amount has been paid by the State Government with respect to such land, the such land shall not be restored unless the amount paid, if any, has been refunded to the State Government. In this case this is not a case of the petitioner that the amount has been refunded to the State Government and even otherwise once the possession of the State is reflected in revenue papers presumption enumerates in favour of the State, it has been taken and vesting as per averment made by the petitioner in the petition has already taken place. Petitioner has not averred that he has applied for restoration on payment of the amount received by him nor it is the pleading that compensation has not been disbursed. Petitioner has relied on a decision in Smt. Saroj Khare vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, of this Court passed in W.P. No. 6261/2001 on 28-1-2002. In that case it is clear that the case was pending as mentioned in para 2 of the order. In the instant case no proceeding is pending. Petitioner has relied on a decision in Smt. Saroj Khare vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, of this Court passed in W.P. No. 6261/2001 on 28-1-2002. In that case it is clear that the case was pending as mentioned in para 2 of the order. In the instant case no proceeding is pending. The order was passed in the year 1988 and it is not the averment that any proceeding is pending at present, only those proceedings abate by virtue of section 4 which are pending as on the date on which the Repeal Act came into force. On the conjoint reading of section 3/4 it is clear that as no proceeding is pending, it cannot be said that the order P. 1 passed in the year 1988 abates. In Saroj Khare case (supra) this Court refused to enter into the question to find out whether the possession has been taken or not. As the proceedings were pending a direction was given to the competent authority to consider the question. In the instant case, no case is pending. Land has vested in the State and in papers, the possession of State is reflected, order was passed in the year 1988, thus, in my opinion, no interference is called for in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. Cost on parties.