Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 140 (MP)

Brijesh Gautam v. State of M. P.

2018-02-02

HEMANT GUPTA, VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA

body2018
ORDER 1. Challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single Bench on 13.4.2017 whereby the Writ Petition No. 1638/2016 filed by the appellant to record his name in the Revenue record was dismissed. 2. Smt.Dasoda Bai, grand-mother of the present appellant purchased agricultural land khasra No. 2/2 and 3/2 (New No.61) area measuring 1.148 Hectare i.e. 2.87 acres of village Basaha, Tahsil and District Jabalpur from Imarti Bai vide registered sale-deed on 11.6.1962. The appellant is a legatee of late Dasoda Bai by virtue of a Will dated 24.9.2009. After death of Dasoda Bai on 18.2.2012, the appellant claimed ownership rights, which were not granted for the reason that the land is surplus in terms of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (in short 'the Act'). 3. The argument of the appellant was that the possession of land was not taken as provided under sub-section(6) of section 10 of the Act, therefore, ownership rights of the appellant are not disturbed under the Act and the appellant is entitled to continue as owner of the land after the said Act was repealed on 22.3.1999 by enactment of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant raised a short argument that State has not served any notice as contemplated under sub-section (6) of section 10 of the Act, which alone will conclude the vesting of the ownership in the State. It is argued that such aspect has been examined by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.558/2016 (State of M.P. and others v. Rajubai and others) decided on 6.7.2017. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the land cannot be said to be vested with the State. 5. Mr.Dwivedi, learned counsel for the State admits that there is no proof of any notice having served upon either on Imarti Bai or Dasoda Bai, which may vest the land in favour of the State. 6. In view of the judgment of this Court in Rajubai (supra), we find that the order passed by the learned Single Bench cannot be sustained in law. The same is set aside. The Revenue Authorities are directed to correct the revenue record from the ownership of the State to that of the appellant in accordance with law. 7. Writ Appeal stands allowed and disposed of.