SARDAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs :

(2.) It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that Jangjeet Singh, the ancestor of the petitioner, was the owner of the land bearing survey Nos.113, 114, 115, 122, 123, 124, 166, 204 and 236 situated in Village Mau, Tehsil and District Gwalior. The proceedings under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 were initiated and order dtd. 21/5/1985 was passed and 16150 square meter of land was declared as surplus land. Thereafter, the proceedings under Sec. 10(1) of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 were initiated and the matter was fixed for further proceedings under Sec. 10(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Till 7/1/1992 the matter remained pending for taking possession. Thereafter, it was observed that on 7/1/1992 the possession receipt has been obtained and by order dtd. 30/6/1992 it was observed that since the possession has been taken, therefore, there is no need and requirement for further proceedings. It is submitted that in spite of the fact that a possession receipt was issued, the name of the petitioner continued in the revenue record. It is submitted that an ex parte possession was taken and no notice in this regard was served and, therefore, the receipt of an ex parte possession is a void document. It is also claimed that while declaring land in excess of the ceiling limits, several aspects were not taken into consideration and, therefore, the order declaring the land in excess of ceiling limit dtd. 21/5/1985 is also bad. It is submitted that when the petitioner applied for issuance of Kisan Credit Card at that time he came to know about the proceedings, therefore, he applied for grant of certified copy of order and received the same on 14/3/2016 and 21/3/2016. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner preferred an appeal under Sec. 33 of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 along with an application for condonation of delay. By order dtd. 21/3/2016, the application under Sec. 5 of Limitation Act was rejected on the ground that the appeal has been preferred after 31 long years and no sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay. It appears that the said order was never challenged by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Sec. 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation), Repeal Act, 1999 (in short "Repeal Act, 1999") alongwith the stay application. Since that application remained pending, therefore, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.17841/2020, which was disposed of by order dtd. 25/11/2020 with a direction to decide the application as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months. Accordingly, the impugned order has been passed.

(3.) It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that no notice was given and a forged receipt has been prepared to show that the possession of the land has been taken on 6/11/1986. It is submitted that not only the petitioner continued to remain in possession, but his name also continued to remain in the revenue records till 2011-2002.