NARAYAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed his return under section 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the competent authority showing that he was the land holder of 73.93 acres of land as on the appointed day. In his return he gave the details of area and the date of transfer and the names of transferees. The competent authority sought for the report from the Superintendent of Land Records in Proforma No. 5. The report showed that as on 1.1.1971 the petitioner was holding 107.61 acres of land and on 7.3.1974 he was holding 101.31 acres of land. The competent authority vide order dated 26.4.1976, Annexure P-1, came to hold that transfer of land measuring 3.25 acres in favour of Ramji son of Godaria was without permission and the other transfers were not effected by way of registered deed. The land totalling 29.65 acres were held not to be falling within the scope of Section 4 of the Act, and accordingly, the transactions were not allowed. The competent authority by the said order directed the draft statement to be issued under section 11 (1) of the Act. The draft statement was subsequently issued on 18.10.1976 wherein 44.63 acres of land was declared surplus. The draft statement has been brought on record as Annexure P-2. As setforth in the writ petition the petitioner assailed the aforesaid order before the Collector who vide order dated 29.9.1976 held that the appeal was competent before the Board. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner approached the Board of Revenue which remanded the matter to the Collector. Thereafter, the Collector vide order dated 9.5.1978 disallowed the appeal. The petitioner again challenged the order in revision before the Additional Commissioner who disallowed the revision. The petitioner assailed the order of the Additional Commissioner before the Board of Revenue which maintained the order passed by the Additional Commissioner. As has been putforth the respondent No. 2, the competent authority under the Act, by order dated 27.3.1989 finally declared the transfer of 29.65 acres of land was invalid. He held that the total area of 107.63 acres of land was held by the petitioner out of which he was entitled for holding 63 acres of land. The land to the extent of 44.63 was declared surplus under the provisions of Section 11(6) of the Act. The order passed by the competent authority has been brought on record as Annexure P-8.

(2.) IT is further case of the petitioner that the objections of transferees were heard and the same were dismissed. The petitioner challenged the order of the competent authority in appeal under section 41 of the Act. The Collector sent for the original records of the case and upon perusal of the same on 22.8.1989 vide Annexure P-9 dismissed the appeal. After passing of the aforesaid order nothing was heard about the ceiling case from the respondents and the petitioner remained in cultivating possession of the land. It is putforth that no final statement was issued and it was never served on the petitioner. It is urged that no options were invited and the land holder indicated his choice in respect of the land. The petitioner has brought certain documents on record to putforth that he is in possession. When the matter stood thus, on 16.9.1996 certain persons from village Ghoghri came to the petitioner and informed that revenue authorities had come to village and they were taking steps to take possession of the land. The petitioner contacted the revenue authorities and brought this aspect to the knowledge of the Collector and apprised the concerned Tahsildar that the crops were standing on the field. As has been alleged that with lot of difficulties he got the final statement which was published. The said document has been brought on record as Annexure P-16. It is averred in the writ petition that Annexure P-16 was never served on the petitioner which is mandatory under the provisions of the Act. It is putforth that the said documents go a long way to show that it was served on the petitioner through Ramji and there are different dates which are indicated in the final statement. It is also putforth that document was never published and no document was ever served on the petitioner. It has also been stated that Ramji is not a family member of the petitioner.

(3.) AN application for taking additional documents on record forming the subject-matter of I. A. No. 680-W/97, was filed. In the said application an affidavit of Ramji has been brought on record indicating that said Ramji had never received the final statement.