Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 185 (MP)

Lallaram Rajak v. State of M. P.

2011-02-08

R.S.JHA, S.R.ALAM

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. This intra-court appeal filed under Section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, arises from the order of the learned Single Judge dated 6.9.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 10292 of 2010. 3. It appears that a proceeding was initiated in respect of the land bearing Khasra No. 141, area 2.07 hectare situated at village Kathonda, Tahsil and District Jabalpur, M.P. under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The father of the Appellants who was the land holder, contested the proceedings and the land was declared surplus. The possession of the land was thereafter taken by the Respondents in presence of witnesses on 22nd July, 1987. However, subsequently when the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Repeal Act') was enacted, an application was moved by the Appellants submitting inter alia that since possession was not taken, therefore, all the legal proceedings in view of the provisions contained under Section 4 of the Repeal Act stand abated. The Collector rejected the application filed under Section 4 of the Act vide impugned order dated 30th June, 2010. 4. The learned Single Judge having heard learned Counsel for the parties found that the possession of the land was taken in presence of the witnesses and held that there is no reason to interfere with the order of the Collector. 5. We have heard learned Counsel for the Appellants at length. From perusal of the record it appears that possession of land in question was taken on 22nd of July, 1987, from Jithua, land holder father of the Appellants in presence of the witnesses after observing all the formalities. The land holder and the witnesses also signed the order dated 22/07/1987 taking possession by the Respondent State Government. It is significant to note that the land holder father of the Appellants was alive but did not raise any objection or challenge the action of the Respondents on the ground that the land cannot be subjected under the Act. 6. It is relevant to note that the application moved by the Appellants (son of the land holder) under Section of the Repeal Act, was in order to draw the benefit of the same, for which, in our view, they are not legally entitled. 6. It is relevant to note that the application moved by the Appellants (son of the land holder) under Section of the Repeal Act, was in order to draw the benefit of the same, for which, in our view, they are not legally entitled. The possession was taken long back in the year 1987 and the land was also recorded in the name of the State Government. 7. During the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for the Appellants failed to point out any evidence on record wherefrom it could be inferred that possession of the land in question, as claimed by the Appellants, was not taken over in the year 1987 and, therefore, it cannot be held that the finding of the Collector is perverse or not based on evidence on record. On the contrary the evidence adduced before the Collector establishes the factum of taking possession of the land by the State Government. Besides that the above finding being a concluded finding of fact and has been affirmed by the learned Single Judge, cannot be reversed or interfered with in the absence of any contrary evidence. 8. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.