DHANIRAM Vs. STATE OF M.P. & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is challenging the order passed by the competent authority, under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, Jabalpur in Revenue Case No. 941/A -90/(B -9)/76 -77 passed on 22.11.86 (Annex. P -5). The competent authority declared 27,343 -082 sq. M. land as surplus. The holder was given 6000 sq.m. land. It appears that against that order Annex. P -5 no appeal was preferred. Notification u/s 10(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was issued on 31.12.87. The gazette notification was also made on 22.2.1988. Thereafter steps were also taken u/s 10(3) of the Ceiling Act. The writ petition has been preferred after about 15 years after passing of the order by the competent authority.

(2.) THE petitioner submits that the land was recorded as agricultural land in the revenue record. Hence action of respondents 2 declaring the land surplus is arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Atia Mohammadi Begum v. State of U.P. ( : AIR 1993 SC 2465) which has been over ruled in State of A.P. v. N. Audiksava Reddy : 2002 (1) S.C.C. 227. It is urged by the petitioner that in the year 1976 no master plan was in force in Jabalpur. It came into force from 8.2.88. Thus the order passed by the competent authority is not proper. It is also urged that the order is void. Reliance was placed on State of M.P. v. Babulal (1980 R.N. 503). Decision of this court in Suderbai and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Anr. (W.P. 6186/01) has also been referred. Petitioner further submits that order Annex. P -5 be quashed. Firstly, in my opinion the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this court. Once the land was declared surplus in 1986 and steps were taken under sub section (3) of section 10, of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Sub -section (3) of section 10 provides that at any time after the publication of the notification under sub section (1), the competent authority may, by notification published in the official gazette of the State concerned, declare that the excess vacant land referred to in the notification published under sub -section (1) shall, with effect from such date as may be specified in the declaration, be deemed to have been acquired by the State Govt. and upon the publication of such declaration, such land shall be deemed to have vested absolutely in the State Govt. free from all encumbrances with effect from the date so specified.

(3.) THE writ petition can be dismissed only on the ground of latches. Petitioner cannot be allowed to reopen the case after 10 -15 years once the right stands concluded finally. In case petitioner was aggrieved by the order passed by the competent authority, it was for him to take the steps within the reasonable time. The order has attained finality, the right have been settled. No proceedings were pending when the Repeal Act came into force. No appeal was filed against the order passed by the competent authority passed in the year 1986. Now the questions cannot be reopened at this stage. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Sunderbai's case (supra). The question of delay was not considered in the said writ petition and this court has held that reliance on Atia Mohammadi Begum's case (supra) is not available as that stands over ruled by the decision of the Apex Court. Paras 11,13 and 14 N. Audikesava Reddy (supra) are quoted below -