NARENDRA KUMAR SONKAR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the prescribed authority under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred as the Act, 1976), dtd. 18/4/2017 whereby the application preferred by the petitioner has been rejected.

(2.) The facts of the case are that a property bearing survey Nos.799, 989, 856/3 admeasurig 4850 s.m., 2750 s.m. and 2450 s.m. situated at Village Chilhudih and Survey No. 1079 admeasuring 1210 s.m. situated at Gudhiyar area and survey Nos. 191, 193, 194 situated at Village Kota admeasuring 12790 s.m., 4050 s.m., 3880 s.m. respectively, were purchased by the petitioner when he was minor through natural guardian his mother through registered sale deeds dtd. 14/3/1966, 30/1/1962, 21/2/1962 and 21/2/1962. A Ceiling Case No.19-A-90(C)(1) year 1984-85 was registered against the petitioner under the provisions of the Act 1976 for having land more than the ceiling limit. The competent authority issued a notice, on 30/1/1986 an enquiry was submitted before the competent authority to the effect that the petitioner was having 38399 s.m. more than the ceiling limit and a draft statement was issued on 5/3/1986. The petitioner filed an objection against the draft statement and thereafter the final order on objection was passed on 22/6/1988 and the alleged vested land was changed from 38399 s.m. to 36399 s.m. Against the said final order, the petitioner raised objection before the competent authority. On the said objection, the competent authority passed an order and changed the alleged vested land from 36399 s.m. to 31980 s.m. and issued the final statement on 18/6/1992. A notification was published under Sec. 10(1) of the Act, 1976 in the Madhya Pradesh official gazette on 6/11/1992 and when no objection was raised against the publication, on 28/3/1993 the competent authority prepared notification under Sec. 10(3) of the Act, 1976 for declaration of said land as vested land. On 13/8/1993 the petitioner raised objection before the competent authority against the alleged vesting of petitioner's land on the ground that the lands proposed to be vested in the State Government are agricultural land and not a vacant land. Upon the said objection, the competent authority held that the alleged vested land is an agriculture land and passed an order that the land belonging to the petitioner is under the ceiling limit and terminated the proceeding of the case on 23/9/1994. Thereafter, the State Government suo moto exercised the revisional power against the order dtd. 23/9/1994 and no notice was issued to the petitioner and consequently the final order was passed and order dtd. 23/9/1994 was set aside vide order dtd. 3/3/1998. Thereafter, on 16/5/2000 the competent authority without giving any opportunity of hearing or issuance of notice to the petitioner, declared the land of the petitioner as vacant land and order was passed for publication of gazette notification under Sec. 10(3) of the Act, 1976 on the ground that the land has already vested in the Government.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was never informed about the suo moto proceeding initiated by the State Government and without affording any opportunity of hearing, the order dtd. 23/9/1994 was set aside vide order dtd. 3/3/1998. It is also argued that the competent authority without following provision of Sec. 10(5) of the Act, 1976 passed the order for vesting of said property with the State Government. He would further submit that no notification as required under Sec. 10(3) of the Act, 1976 was published. He would also submit that though in official record of the State Government the property has been shown vested with the State Government, actually the petitioner is in possession of the said land. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that with regard to possession of the property in question there is no specific averment. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Hari Ram, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 280.