RAM SHREE Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed this petition challenging the orders dt.28.2.2004 (Annexure P/4) dt.7.5.1990 (Annexure P/5), order dt.19.6.1990 (Annexure P/6), notification dt.19.6.1990 (Annexure P/7) and notice dt.14.11.1991 (Annexure P/8). The petitioners further prayed a relief that the possession of the land have not been taken over, hence, in view of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Repeal Act'), the land acquisition proceedings in regard to the land be deemed to be dropped.

(2.) A land area 3.756 hectare comprising khasra of survey No.96, 114, 358, 359, 360, 436, 437, 442, 489 and 622 situate at Maharajur Gird. Land was recorded in the name of Devi Singh S/o Mangal Singh. Mangal Singh was the owner of 1/2 of the land and a proceeding under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1976') was initiated against him. He was directed to submit a statement in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1976. He appeared before the authority and submitted statement in regard to his holding. The competent authority under the Act of 1976 vide order dt.28.2.1984 held that Devi Singh had an excess land of 17990 sq. mtr. in accordance the provisions of the Act of 1976 and consequently the land was declared in excess and a draft statement was prepared. It is further mentioned by the authority that out of total land of 31555 sq. mtr. 12,065 sq.mtr. was under use of agriculture purpose, hence, it was free from ceiling limit. Thereafter, draft statement was published. Devi Singh appeared before the authority and he submitted his objections, then a notification under Section 10 (3) of the Act of 1976 was also published and the land was vested with the Government. Thereafter, a notice under Section 10 (5) of the Act of 1976 was issued to Devi singh on 14.11.1991 to hand over the possession of the land. It is mentioned in the notice that failing to hand over the possession, action under Section 10 (6) of the Act of 1976 would be taken. As per report of Chainman dt.28.11.1991, Devisingh refused to take notice. Thereafter, the notice was affixed at his residence and Devisingh did not hand over the possession. Possession of the land was taken by the Tahsildar. A copy of the kabja receipts are in the record. It is mentioned in the receipt that the possession of survey Nos.489, 442, 359, 358/52, 359/59, 360/53, 436, 449/52, 450/13, 469/53, 563/29, 564 had been taken on different dates and compliance report was also sent to the competent authority. As per the letter of competent authority Urban Land Gwalior dt.14.1.1992, the land was allotted to Seema Suraksha Bal Karmik Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti (Maryadit), Tekanpur, Gwalior, Takenpur.

(3.) HON 'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Hari Ram reported in (2013) 4 SCC 280 has considered in detail the different provisions of Act of 1976 and the provisions of Repeal Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court further considered the word "vested" and "vested absolute". Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held as under :-