MAYARAM Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners before this Court have filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 8.5.1992 (Annexure-P/7), 18.11.1992.

(2.) IN the present case, the contention of the petitioners is that they are owner of agricultural land and proceedings were initiated under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1976") in respect of the land. A declaration was submitted by the petitioners as required under section 6 of the Act of 1976 categorically stating therein that it is an agricultural land. The petitioners have further stated that thereafter a draft statement was issued by the respondents declaring 6.392 hectares as surplus land and further proceedings were initiated under the Act of 1976. The petitioners have also submitted an application under Sections 21 and 22 of the Act of 1976 and finally symbolic possession of the land was taken by the respondents revenue authorities. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order declaring the land as surplus, preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and the same was dismissed by an order dated 18th November, 1982. In the present case various grounds have been raised, however the first ground raised by the petitioners is in respect of agricultural land and their contention is that no proceedings could have been initiated under the Act of 1976. It has also been argued that physical possession of the land is still with the petitioners. It is pertinent to note that the matter has earlier traveled up to the Apex Court and the Apex Court has remanded the matter back to decide the same afresh by taking into account the grounds raised by the petitioners and the Apex Court has also directed this court to take into account the question of actual possession on the date the Repeal Act came into force. The petitioners have enclosed a copy of the revenue records right from 1985 till date and in all revenue records it is reflected the land is being used for the agricultural purposes alone by the petitioners. The respondents/State in its return has taken a stand that as per Master Plan the land would be used for residential purposes therefore even if the agriculture is going on over the land in question then also by no stretch of imagination the same can be treated as agricultural land. However, the learned counsel for the respondents/State has not denied the fact that the petitioners are today also in actual physical possession of the land and are carrying out the agricultural.

(3.) KEEPING in view the aforesaid judgment delivered in the case of Shantibai (supra), as the land was being used and is being used for the purposes of agriculture in an urban agglomeration could not have been included within the ambit and scope of vacant land as has been done by the respondents. Therefore, the entire proceedings and the impugned order dated 8.5.92 and 18.11.92 passed by the respondents are set aside. Similarly Division Bench of this court in the case of Trilok Singh Yadav Vs. Secretary Revenue Department, reported in 1996 (I) MPWN 111 has held that a land in urban area shown as agricultural land at the commencement of the Act, is an agricultural land and the purpose cannot be changed by the Master Plan brought subsequently and, therefore, in the present case also any subsequent action of the respondents in changing the land use which was being used for agricultural and including the land under the Master Plan as residential land will not be wipe out the right of the petitioners over the land in question as it is exclusively agricultural land. The petitioners have also raised various other grounds in respect of service of notice and their contention is that the notices were not served to them. They have also raised other grounds in respect of symbolic possession taken by the respondents, however the facts remain as this court has arrived at a conclusion that the land in question was an agricultural land at the relevant point of time and objection was raised right from 1976 that it is an agricultural land and still agricultural is going on, the impugned order passed by the respondents/state dated 9.5.92 and 8.11.92 are hereby set aside. The respondents/State is directed to correct all revenue entries by substituting the name of the petitioners and legal heirs of Mayaram. The petitioners are already in possession of the land in question, therefore, the question to hand over the possession by the State Government to the petitioners does not arise. They shall be permitted to continue in possession by virtue of order passed by this court and the exercise to correct entries in the revenue record be concluded within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.