LEELABAI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners before this court have filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 24.3.98 passed by the State Government by which the contention of the petitioners in respect the land in question has been turned down. The petitioners grievance is that one Ganpat Mali was the owner of the land bearing Survey No. 13/2, 15, 16/2, 17/3 admeasuring 2.038 hectares situated at village Goyla Khurd Tehsil, Ujjain and Ganpat Mali expired before enactment of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1976"). The contention of the petitioners is that the land in question is exclusively being used for the agricultural purposes and by no stretch of imagination it could have been included under any proceedings arising out of the provisions of the Act of 1976. The petitioners have further stated that the respondent No.3 issued a notice under Section 6 (1) of the Act of 1976 stating that deceased Mangilal S/o Ganpatlal and Mangilal's mother Hiribai were entitled to hold 0.44 hectare of land and the remaining land is a surplus land. Notice was issued to Mangilal and Hiribai, but was served to Mangilal only.

(2.) THE contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the draft statement was submitted by Mangilal only. The petitioner has further stated that a notice was issued under section 8(1) on 22.9.79 and the same was served to Hiribai and no notice was served to Mangilal. The petitioners have further stated that thereafter a notice under Section 8(1) of the Act was again issued and which was not served upon Mangilal and thereafter in absence of the objections to the draft statement an order was passed for proceeding under section 9 of the Act for declaring a final statement. The petitioners have further stated that without serving final statement, the land admeasuring 1.643 hectare declared as a surplus in the hand of Mangilal and Hiribai and a notice was issued under section 10(1) on 14.4.80. The petitioners have further stated that an application under section 20 for exemption of land was moved by Mangilal and Hiribai and the same was rejected on 16.1.91. The petitioners have further stated that as the land in question is an agricultural land and the authorities under the Act of 1976 were lacking inherent jurisdiction to pass the order and an appeal was preferred against the order declaring the land as surplus before the respondent No.2 and the appeal was dismissed on 24.9.97. Thereafter a revision was preferred under section 34 of the Act of 1976 and the same was dismissed on 24.3.98. The petitioners have further stated that they are in possession of the land in question and are carrying out agricultural activities and by virtue of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Repeal Act, 1999 as the proceedings under the Act of 1976 were void-ab-initio, they are entitled to continue in possession and ownership of the land in question. The petitioners have also enclosed revenue entries right from 1974 to 2001 and the revenue entries reflect that the land in question is being used for agricultural purposes. The respondents in their return in pargraph 4(c) have admitted that the land in question is recorded as agricultural land. Not only this, other documents have filed today reflects that horticulture is going over the land in question, even though symbolic possession has been taken over by the State of Madhya Pradesh.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.