Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 285 (MP)

Bharat Lal v. State of M. P.

2003-02-17

A.K.MISHRA

body2003
JUDGMENT Petitioners are assailing the order P-2 dated 11.6.87 and order P-3 dated 13.8.1987 passed by the competent authority acting under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Petitioners have made the further prayer that the proceedings before the competent authority be ordered to have abated in view of the provision contained in section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. Prayer is also made to direct decision of the application dated 28.4.2000 (P-4) by the competent authority. Writ petition has been filed on the averment that land has been wrongly declared as surplus and the decision is in contravention to the· dictum of the Apex Court in Atia Mohammadi Begum v. State of U.P. (1993) 2 SCC 546 . Petitioners further submit that the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 has been repealed, no notice under section 10(5) of the Repealed Act, 1976 has been served and possession has not been taken away of the surplus land. No proceedings under section 11, 12,13 and 14 of the Repealed Act, 1976 were initiated or pending on the date of adoption of the Repeal Act, 1999. As the orders are void, hence, invalidity can be set up at any time, hence the delay in filing the petition, if any, be ignored. Proceedings under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act were initiated in the year 1980 declaring certain land as surplus which order was subjected to appeal, the matter was remitted back by the Commissioner to the competent authority for decision afresh, thereafter order P-2 has been passed by the competent authority on 11.6.1987 and ordered to issue the final statement under section 9. Petitioner claims that land was exempted from operation of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act as per the decision of Atia Mohammadi (supra), proceedings are void ab initio as petitioners possession has not been disturbed, proceedings stand abated by virtue of section 4 of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act. The submission raised by the petitioners that land was exempted based on the decision of Atia Mohammadi Begum (supra) is of no avail as the said decision has been overruled partly in State of A.P. and others v. N. Audikesava Reddy and others (2002) 1 SCC 227 . The submission raised by the petitioners that land was exempted based on the decision of Atia Mohammadi Begum (supra) is of no avail as the said decision has been overruled partly in State of A.P. and others v. N. Audikesava Reddy and others (2002) 1 SCC 227 . The Apex Court has held that master plan even if prepared after commencement of the Act has to be taken into consideration; in order to determine whether particular land in question is vacant land or not; the date on which such land becomes vacant land would be the date of commencement of the Act as regards such land. Development and town planning are ongoing processes and they go on changing from time to time depending upon the local needs. Coming to the next submission raised by the petitioners that by virtue of section 4 of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 as possession has not been taken, proceedings stand abated. There is averment made by the petitioner that no proceedings are pending at present and possession has been taken away is clear from the order dated 29th October, 1999 in which it has been clearly mentioned that proceedings under section 10(5) of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 were taken and possession was taken by the State Government on 11.2.1992 and this fact finds support from the order sheet of the competent authority dated 30th November, 1992, there is nothing to disbelieve the fact that possession was taken in 1992 as mentioned in the order dated 29th October, 1999. The writ petition suffers with laches, basic order was passed in the year 1987 declaring the land as surplus, possession was taken in the year 1992 and only the order dated 23.12.1994 was challenged before the Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur which was not an order as in the order passed by the Collector on 23.12.1994 it was simply mentioned that all proceedings in the case were completed. Against this order time barred appeal was preferred before the Commissioner and this writ petition has been filed for challenging the order of 1987 and 1999 in 2002, writ petition is belatedly filed; the order of 1987 was not challenged in appeal. Against this order time barred appeal was preferred before the Commissioner and this writ petition has been filed for challenging the order of 1987 and 1999 in 2002, writ petition is belatedly filed; the order of 1987 was not challenged in appeal. Petitioners have not been able to show that any proceeding is pending at present and as possession has been taken, in my opinion, by virtue of section 3 of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 only that proceeding is saved where the possession has not been taken over by the State Government; section 4 provides for abatement of legal proceedings. If any proceeding is pending before any Court, Tribunal or other authority shall abate, however, proviso saves the proceedings relating to sections 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Act in so far as such proceedings are relatable to the land possession of which has been taken over by the State Government, in my opinion, as the possession has been taken over, the saving clause in section 3 or the abatement of proceedings as provided under section 4 does not come to rescue of the petitioner. No interference is called for in the writ petition. Same is dismissed.