RAJENDRA KUMAR PATEL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the validity of impugned order dated 10.03.2005 (Annexure-P/7) passed by the competent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (in short "Act of 1976").

(2.) THE facts necessary for disposal of this petition lie in a narrow compass. Suffice it to say that under the Act of 1976 the proceedings were started against the petitioner and the lands in question were declared to be surplus. Eventually it was directed by the competent authority to take possession under Section 10(5) of the Act of 1976. The competent authority sent the case to the Tehsildar Jabalpur who sent the case to the Court of Naib Tehsildar where a revenue case was registered as 33/B/121/1993-94. In the said revenue case the Naib Tehsildar on 28.12.1993 directed to issue possession warrant and eventually the possession was obtained by the Naib Tehsildar on 28.01.1994.

(3.) ON bare perusal of the notice under Section 10(5) of Act of 1976 it is gathered that 30 days notice was issued to the petitioner to deliver possession with further stipulation that in case possession is not given, the possession under Section 10(6) of the Act of 1976 will be taken. Admittedly no notice under Section 10(6) of the Act of 1976 was issued to the petitioner. Even otherwise on bare perusal of the receipt of possession this Court finds that in ex parte possession has been obtained by the Naib Tehsildar but possession was not taken in presence of any witness because there is no endorsement of the name or signature of any witness. Hence, according to me, firstly the possession could not have been taken in the manner and fashion which has been alleged to have been obtained by Naib Tehsildar. Secondly the document of receipt of possession is highly suspicious and cannot be relied upon because the names of witnesses are not mentioned in the receipt and the space is left blank. Hence, to me, such possession cannot be said to be obtained in accordance to the Section 10(6) of the Act of 1976.