A K BARATT Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for declaration of Section 3 (1) (a) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, as ultravires the Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE facts which are essential to be adumbrated for disposal of the writ petition are that the father of the petitioner was the owner of immovable properties situated at Napier Town, Baratt Road, Jabalpur and after his death the property was inherited by the petitioner. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Principal Act') came into force in the year 1976. The father of the petitioner filed the return as required under the Principal Act. After due enquiry the competent authority declared 4016. 65 sq. m. of the land as surplus and notification under Sections 10 (1) and 10 (3) was published. After publication of the notice, as pleaded in the petition, the surplus land vested in the State Government on 25-11-1992. A notice as required under Section 10 (5) of the Act was issued to the petitioner directing him to handover the possession of the vacant land as the same was acquired by the Government under the Principal Act. The notice issued by the competent authority has been brought on record as Annexure P-1. It is putforth that Tehsildar (Nazul), Jabalpur went to the spot to take the possession and got a document signed by the petitioner indicating that physical possession of the entire land was taken by him although same was not done. Some part of the land measuring about 8185 sq. m. was already in occupation of 17 persons there. It is putforth that only symbolic possession could be taken through the said document. It is urged that the possession remained with 17 persons who were inducted by the father of the petitioner and they continued to be licensee of the petitioner after the death of his father. On 9-4-1994 an order was passed by the competent authority under the Principal Act that the petitioner's possession on the entire land was not taken by the State Government and only a part of the land could be utilised by the State Government. A direction was issued to the petitioner to see that the physical possession of the land was given to the State Government and the petitioner cooperated with the Government. Out of total compensation determined by the State Government which was calculated at Rs. 20,083/the petitioner was given compensation only to the extent of Rs. 5083/- and till the date entire compensation for the land was not paid by the State Government.

(3.) ACCORDING to the writ petitioner the Principal Act was brought into existence keeping in view the increase of population and more over for urbanisation development urban area was required. Reference has been made to Section 10 to show how the possession of the surplus land is to be taken. There has been reference in the writ petition to Section 11 which provides the procedure for grant of compensation of acquired land and to Section 23 for disposal of the vacant land acquired by the State Government. It is setforth that the Principal Act remained in force till the year 1999 and eventually it was repealed by the Parliament and the State of Madhya Pradesh passed the resolution under Article 252 (2) of the Constitution of India to apply the Repeal Act, 1999. Reference has been made to Section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999 which deals with Savings. It is contended in the petition that Section 3 (1) (a) of the Repeal Act is discriminatory in nature and favours those persons who are dishonest and manipulated the proceedings before the competent authority. It is averred that the said provision is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as it denies the equality before law or equal protection before law. It is contended that under the Principal Act the procedure was prescribed for acquisition of land and its use and for that purposes Sections 23 (4) and 23 (5) were enacted. After the repeal of the Act the powers which were given to the State Government to retain the land after its vesting is no longer there and the same cannot be exercised for public benefit because of repeal of the Act itself. Even if possession of the land was taken over and the same was not used for public benefit during the subsistence of the Principal Act, the retention can no longer be allowed as the State Government has lost its rights to utilise the same for any purpose. It is also putforth that the word 'possession' as used in the Act does not give a fair idea whether the word possession as used in the Repeal Act refers to physical possession or symbolic possession or whether symbolic possession of the property could mean retention of the land without getting physical possession of the same. It is putforth that if the symbolic possession has been taken over and the land has not been utilised for any purpose the State Government has no right to retain the same and is bound to restore it back to the owner. It is contended that the State Government by virtue of Section 3 (1) (a) of the Repeal Act, 1999 does not have the right to retain the land if the possession was not taken and the same was not utilised for any public purpose. It is putforth that the aforesaid provision is arbitrary as the same can not be enforced to deprive the petitioner from that part of the land of which the physical possession was not taken and not utilised for the public purpose. It is also highlighted that the persons who surrendered their land to the Government honestly and cooperated with the Government have suffered and those who manipulated and delayed the decision have gained the benefit and, therefore, the provision is ultravires.