BHAIYAJI @ UDAYRAM Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the order dated 18.3.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1407/02 the appellant has filed this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

(2.) A brief resume of facts required to be stated for the disposal of the petition is that the appellant is a Bhumiswami of agricultural land being khasra No. 3/1, 3/2, 4/2 and 221/1 of village Purwa, Tehsil and District Jabalpur for which the holder Chirojilal has filed a return under section 6 (1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') before the respondent No.2, who without holding any inquiry passed an order on 6.12.1983 in case No. 153/A -90/B -9179 -80 declaring an area of 7332.25 sq. meters as surplus after giving one unit to the holder and ordered to issue draft statement. The holder filed an objection against the draft statement which was not accepted and the respondent No.2 passed an order on 26.7.1984 declaring the area of 7332.25 sq. meters as surplus.

(3.) APPELLANT filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the order passed by the comptent authority with a prayer to quash the same as it was without jurisdiction. This writ petition was registered as Writ Petition No. 1407/2002. It was contended in the writ petition that proceedings of the Court of competent authority shall stand abated in view of section 4 of repealing Act. The learned Single Judge, relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. N. Audikesava Reddi and others [(2002) 1 SCC 227] held that the land in question was in the master plan and was meant for housing purpose and therefore, competent authority was justified in declaring the land as surplus. The learned Single Judge also concluded that the petitioner cannot be allowed to reopen the order passed by the competent authority.