KUNDAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD on the question of admission. The only submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that before taking possession of the land which was declared excess of the ceiling limit the notice by registered A.D. was not given to the appellant as required under Rule 5 of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act of 1976. The procedure laid down under Rule 5 is applicable at the stage where draft statement prepared under sub-section (1), of section 8. Under sub rule (2) of Rule 5, the draft statement shall be served together with the notice referred to in sub-section (3) of section 8 and it has been mentioned by sending the same by registered post addressed to the person concerned.

(2.) WE have perused the written statement which is filed by the plaintiff and marked as document Ex. P-10 in which it has been mentioned that under section 6 (2) return was filed on 25.8.1983, thereafter draft order was issued on 30.1.1984 and after issuing notice to the appellant on 7.3.1984, the final order was passed on 20.6.1984 and the 31465 sq. mtr. of land was declared excess thereafter notification in the official gazette under section 10 (1) was published on 1.6.1990 and the another notice under section 10 (3) was published in the official gazette on 10.1.1992 and thereafter possession was taken by the Tahsildar Nazul on 8.4.1993. The notice Annexure R-1 which was issued under section 10 (5) to the appellant is dated 29.1.1992 and this notice was served by Keshav Dayal Chainman on 13.2.1992. As per endorsement at the back of the notice is that the addressee refused to accept the notice. It also bears the signatures of the two witnesses. In the civil suit where the Court was holding an enquiry it was not the case of the appellant that the signatures of two witnesses are not genuine nor those persons were examined if the registered post address notice was not issued to the addressee, but the notice was duly served through Keshav Dayal, Chainman. All these questions were raised by the appellant in the civil suit and they were answered against him.