Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1171 (MP)

Sunil Bhadoria v. State of M. P.

2016-12-20

ROHIT ARYA

body2016
ORDER 1. This Court while disposing of Writ Petition No.6175 of 2012 on 5.1.2015= 2015 RN 120 (HC) has directed as under : “11. In view of the aforesaid, in the opinion of this Court, the possession of the land in question in case No.A and B cannot be said to have been taken by the respondents vide possession receipts dated 29.3.1994. Hence, by force of coming into force of section 3 of the Repeal Act of 1999 the land ceiling proceedings stood abated and land in question stood reverted back to its holders. Possession receipts dated 29.3.1994 are quashed and the authorities are directed to delete the fact as regards pendency of ceiling proceedings in coloumn No.12 in respect of the land in question in case No.A and B.” 2. It appears that Tahsildar, Tahsil Gwalior in compliance thereof has passed an order on 30.12.2015 after having received notices in Contempt Case No.302/2015. Under this order, it has been ordered for mutation of the land in question to be recorded in the name of the petitioner, in the revenue record and supply khasra with digital signature. It appears that Tahsildar, Tahsil Gwalior in compliance thereof has passed an order on 30.12.2015 after having received notices in Contempt Case No.302/2015. Under this order, it has been ordered for mutation of the land in question to be recorded in the name of the petitioner, in the revenue record and supply khasra with digital signature. ^^6- mijksDr rF;ksa ds izdk'k esa eSa ;g ikrk gw¡ fd orZeku esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; [k.M ihB Xokfy;j esa voekuuk ;kfpdk Øekad 302@2015 izpfyr gS] ftlesa rglhynkj] rglhy Xokfy;j dks i{kdkj cuk;k x;k gS ,oa fnukad 7-1-2016 dks rglhynkj] rglhy Xokfy;j dh U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds ikyu djkdj O;fDrxr is'kh fu;r dh xbZ gSA ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds voekuuk izdj.k esa fdlh Hkh izdkj dh izfrdwy fLFkfr fufeZr u gks blls cpus gsrq rFkk vfrfjDr egkf/koDrk [k.MihB Xokfy;j ds fof/kd erkuqlkj ,oa e/; izns'k 'kklu lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx }kjk Hkh U;k;ky;ksa ds vkns'kksa dk ikyu fd, tkus gsrq ifji= fnukad 1-10-2011 tkjh fd;k x;k gSA mDr leLr dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, xzke txukiqjk dh Hkwfe losZ Øekad 155] 156] 207@1] 208@1] 209] 210] 211] 212] 214] 215] 208 ,oa 213 dqy fdrk 11 jdok 1-769 gsDVj ij iVokjh [kljk ds dkye uacj&12 esa vafdr izfof"V lhfyax esa izdj.k yfEcr foyksfir dh tkrh gSA ;g vkns'k 'kklu ds vihy ds vf/kdkj dks lqjf{kr j[krs gq, rFkk vihy esa ikfjr gksus okys vkns'k ds v/;/khu jgsxkA vkosnd lwfpr gksA ekStk iVokjh rnkuqlkj fjdkMZ esa vey djsA ikfjr vkns'k dh ,d izfr vkosnd dks iznk; dh tk, rFkk ,d izfr izHkkjh vf/kdkjh lhfyax 'kk[kk dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; [k.MihB Xokfy;j ds voekuuk izdj.k Øekad 302@2015 esa fu;r is'kh fnukad 7-1-2016 esa izLrqr djus gsrq Hksth tk,] rFkk ekStk iVokjh mDr vkns'k dk ikyu [kljs esa djkdj fMthVy gLrk{kfjr [kljk iznk; djsaA ckn dk;Zokgh izdj.k nk;jk vad ls de gksdj nkf[ky fjdkMZ gksA** 3. The respondents have taken somersault having issued the impugned communication dated 16.8.2016 (Annexure P-1) where under the petitioner is denied NOC in respect of the land referred to above, on the premise that the aforesaid parcels of land has been declared surplus land vested in the State Government by the orders of the competent authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. 4. 4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner taking exception to the impugned communication contends that the aforesaid rejection of NOC in fact and in effect tantamount to stultification of the order passed by this Court earlier while disposing of Writ Petition No.6175/2012 (supra), and is in contra-distinction to the earlier order passed by the respondents on 30.12.2015 (supra). He further contends that once this Court has held that by force of section 3 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act,1999, the ceiling proceedings have stood abated and the land in question stood reverted back to its holders with further direction to delete the fact of pendency of further ceiling proceedings in column No.12 in respect of the land in question in case No.A and B, thereafter, the Tahsildar, Gwalior having ordered for mutation of the name of the petitioner in respect of the land in question, in the revenue record, the impugned order is reflection of an apparent colourable exercise of the power and a fraud on law. The authorities have in fact shown grave disrespect to the Majesty of the law emanated from mandate of law contained in the order passed in Writ Petition No.6175/2012 (supra). Learned senior counsel, therefore, vehemently contends that stringent and deterrent orders be passed against the erring officers having issued the impugned order dated 16.8.2016 (Annexure P-1). 5. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General fairly submits that in the teeth of the order rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No.61756/2012= 2015 RN 120 (HC) (supra), in paragraph 11 quoted above and the order passed by the Tahsildar, Gwalior dated 30.12.2015 (supra), in compliance thereof, in all fairness, the impugned communication could not have been issued. 6. In view of the grace shown by the learned Additional Advocate General in the context of the impugned communication/order and in the factual backdrop of facts narrated above, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned communication/order cannot withstand the test of reasonableness and sustainability in the eye of law. 7. Consequently, the impugned communication/order dated 16.8.2016 (Annexure P-1) is quashed. 7. Consequently, the impugned communication/order dated 16.8.2016 (Annexure P-1) is quashed. The respondent No.3, Nazul Officer, Gwalior City, Gwalior is directed to record the name of the petitioner in respect of the parcels of land, falling in survey Nos.155, 156, 207/1, 208/1, 209, 210, 211, 212, 214, 215, 208 and 213, total area 1.769 hectare situated in village Jaganpura, Tahsil and District Gwalior in the revenue record, within one week from the date of receipt of certified copy of order passed today and thereafter reconsider the application already filed for issuance of NOC, forthwith. 8. With the aforesaid direction, writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.