GULAB BAI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the instant writ petition has prayed for declaration for abatement of the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1976") in view of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the "Repeal Act, 1999").

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is Bhumi Swami of land bearing Khasra No.199/2, area admeasuring 0. 494 hectares, situated at Village - Purva, Tehsil NB No.162, PH No.28, Tehsil and District Jabalpur. According to him, on 3/2/1984 in Case No.814/A-90/B-9/1981-82 an area of about 3586.34 sq.ft. was declared as surplus. The petitioner states that no notice was issued under Sec. 10(5) of the Act of 1976, nor the possession of the land in question has been taken over by the State. The compensation has not been paid. Since, the petitioner was suffering from ailment, therefore, no timely steps could be taken and hence, in view of the decision passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Ram Kumar Pathak Vs. State of M.P. & Others (W.A.No.734/2008) on 18/7/2012 against which SLP (Civil) CC 10714-10715/2013 was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 26/8/2013. Hence, the present writ petition be entertained and appropriate relief be granted.

(3.) This Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer made in the present writ petition. The Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Ram Narayan & Others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others dated 14.02.20221 had an occasion to consider the provisions of the Act of 1996 and the Repeal Act, 1999. While taking into consideration various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and decisions of this Court, it has been held that after lapse of reasonable time, the party cannot be allowed to claim the benefit under the Repeal Act, 1999. In that case, the possession was taken in the year 1994 and in the year 2004, the petitioner in that case made an application seeking benefit of the Repeal Act, 1999.