GAJRAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in this writ petition is assailing Orders (Annexure A.B.C & D) passed by Competent Authority, that is, SDO, Khurai, District-Sagar, Collector, District-Sagar, Addl. Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar and Board of Revenue respectively.

(2.) AS per order dated 4.7.1977 certain land held by petitioner was declared to be surplus land, it was held that 22.29 acres land was surplus, it was proposed to vest the land in the State, draft statement was published, objections were filed by two purchasers, namely, Shivraj Singh and Kudau, they had purchased the land after the appointed date i.e. 1.1.1971 on 18.4.1972 and 2.11.1972, third objection was filed by Phulabai claiming herself to be the mother of petitioner. The Competent Authority, as per Order (Annexure-A) set aside the objections which were preferred by Shivraj Singh, Kudau and Phulabai, aggrieved by the order holder Gajraj Singh filed an appeal before the Collector, Collector dismissed the appeal, revision was preferred before Addl. Commissioner, Commissioner also dismissed the revision. Further revision was preferred before the Board of Revenue which was dismissed by Board of Revenue as per Order (Annexure-D) dated 4th January, 1990.

(3.) (1) and then to pass an order under section 11 (3) of M.P. Ceiling On Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). It was also found by the Board of Revenue in the order dated 17.9.1976 that Phulabai was not married wife of Damrusingh, she was a kept, she was given 11 acres of land separately, she was an independent holder of the land, order passed by Board of Revenue has attained finality is not in dispute. After remand of the matter, aforesaid Orders (Annexure A to D) have been passed which have been assailed in this petition. 4. Shri K.N. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner has submitted that the learned Competent Authority, Collector, Commissioner and Board of Revenue have committed illegality while passing Orders (Annexures A to D). It is submitted that no notice was given to purchasers Shivraj Singh and Kudau. Phulabai is mother of petitioner as such she was also entitled for the share out of the agricultural holdings held by family. He has further submitted that opportunity was not given to select the land to the petitioner, hence, orders are bad in law.