Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 284 (MP)

Govind Prasad Yadav v. State Of M. P.

2011-02-28

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA

body2011
JUDGMENT ( 1. ) BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking for the quashment and exemption from the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (in short 'the Act of 1976'). ( 2. ) THE contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that possession of the disputed land was not obtained prior to the date of repealing of the Act,. Learned Counsel has submitted that on 10-3-2000 this Act was repealed and vide Section 3 of the Repealing Act, the proceedings pending under the Act of 1976 shall stand abated. Learned Counsel submits that till the cut off date is 22-3-1999 the possession of the land was not obtained from petitioner although on paper it has been shown that the possession has been obtained and w.e.f. 22-3-1999 the Repeal Act came into force. ( 3. ) LEARNED Counsel has invited my attention to the notice of Tehsildar Nazul, Jabalpur in Case No. 57/B 121/1988-1989, dated Nil and has submitted that a notice for taking possession on 29-7-1988 was given and as per the report of process server the service of notice was made by affixture on the same date 29-7-1988. LEARNED Counsel submits that prior to 29-7-1988, a fictitious and bogus document was prepared wherein it has been shown that the possession of the land in question has been obtained on 28-9-1988 and hence it has been put forth by learned Counsel that all these documents were prepared in the office in order to show that the possession has already been taken prior to the cut off date, so that the petitioner may not be benefited by Section 3 of Repealing Act. ( 4. ) THIS petition was filed on 18-5-2006 but no return has been filed after lapse of near about 5 years, hence, I have heard learned Counsel for parties finally. On going through the order-sheets of the Competent Authority under the Act of 1976 from 25-9-1981 till last date when the proceedings were closed dated 27-5-1991, it is gathered that for years together the case was adjourned for publication of notice under Section 10 of the Act of 1976. On 25-1-1989 it was directed to issue notice to obtain possession and 31-3-1989 the date of hearing was fixed. On 25-1-1989 it was directed to issue notice to obtain possession and 31-3-1989 the date of hearing was fixed. The matter was not taken up for hearing on this date and not only this for two years the matter was not taken up for hearing. On one fine day on 27-5-1991, viz., (after more than 2 years and two months) the matter was taken up for hearing all of a sudden and it was written that possession has already been obtained. This Court fails to understand that Competent Authority who is the Senior Revenue Officer why he has failed to discharge his judicial duty by not taking up the case on 31-3-1989, when it was fixed for hearing. ( 5. ) ACCORDING to me, in the present case, it appears that the Revenue Authorities including the Competent Authority are acting like a private litigant and has prepared the document that the possession of the land in question was obtained on 28-7-1988 with an utter most object so that the petitioner may not be benefited by the Repealing Act. This Court fails to understand that when the notice itself was issued for hearing of taking possession on 29-7-1988 how one day prior to it the possession was obtained. ( 6. ) ONE important fact which cannot be marginalized and blinked away is that when continuously for years together the order-sheets were being written that notice to obtain possession be issued to the petitioner and the last order-sheet in that regard is 25-1-1989, how and by playing which game of magic the possession was obtained earlier to it on 28-7-1988. Hence, I have no scintilla of doubt in holding that the possession of land in question was never taken from the petitioner and if that would be the position, Section 3 of the Repeal Act will be triggered and set in motion and the proceedings under the Act of 1976 shall stand abated in favour of the petitioner and it is hereby held that a possession was never obtained from petitioner. The petitioner shall be entitled to retain the possession of the land in question. This petition is accordingly allowed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 3,000/- if pre-certified.