SUNDERBAI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have prayed for quashment of order dated 7-7-1984, Annexure P-3, passed by the respondent No. 2 whereby a draft statement was published under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.

(2.) MR. L. N. Namdeo, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has raised two fold contentions, namely, the land of the petitioners was not included in the master plan of Jabalpur and, therefore, it could not have been treated as vacant land and, therefore, determination of land as surplus as has been done by the competent authority under the Act is null and void in view of the decision rendered in the case of Atia Mohammadi Begum v. The State of U. P. and Ors. , AIR 1993 SC 2465, and the decision by this Court in W. P. No. 833/91, decided on 12-12-1995 (Trilok Singh Yadav v. Stale of M. P. and Ors.); and secondly the possession of the land having not been taken over as envisaged under Section 10 of the aforesaid Act the possession cannot be taken over at this juncture.

(3.) MR. Ajay Raizada, learned Government Advocate, has submitted that the decision rendered in the case of Atia Mohammadi Begum (supra), has been partially overruled by the Apex Court in the decision rendered in the case of State of A. P. and Ors. v. N. Audikesava Reddy and Ors. , (2002) 1 SCC 227. It is also putforth by him that the possession in question had already been taken in 1984 and, therefore, Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "the Repeal Act') would not render any assistance to the petitioners.