CHAMELI BAI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief:-

(2.) In short the facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner and in possession of the disputed land. The petitioner is the only successor and legal heir of her father Babau Yadav. The disputed land was originally recorded in the name of Babau Yadav, who was in possession of the said land. Babau Yadav was the owner of disputed land. The Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short Act of 1976) initiated ceiling proceeding Case No.694/A-90/B-9/76-77 against Babau Yadav in respect of his agricultural lands situated at Khasra No.17/5 area 1.283 hectares and Khasra No.57/4 area 0.170 hectares, Settlement No.164, Patwari Circle No.24/2, village Polipathar, Tahsil and District Jabalpur and asked the petitioner to submit the objection. Objection submitted by Babau Yadav that since the lands are agricultural lands, it cannot be declared as surplus. However, on 10/12/1979 (Annexure P/1), an area of land i.e. 12218.81 sq.mt. was declared as surplus and as per the provisions of Sec. 10(3) of the Act of 1976 the notification was issued and published in the Gazette. It is submitted that no notice under Sec. 10(5) of the Act of 1976 was issued to Babau Yadav or to the petitioner or her mother.

(3.) It is submitted that against the order declaring the land in question as surplus and vesting of lands in the Government under Sec. 10(3) of the Act of 1976, petitioner's father Babau Yadav filed an appeal under Sec. 33 of the Act of 1976 before the respondent No.2- Commissioner, Jabalpur. In the meanwhile, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (For short 'Repeal Act') came into force in the State of M.P.. Therefore, respondent No.2-Commissioner, Jabalpur has passed the an order dtd. 23/7/2000 (Annexure P/2) observing that by operation of the Repeal Act, the entire proceedings stood abated. Thereafter, the father of the petitioner Babau Yadav filed an application for recording his name, but the respondent No. 4 has passed the order dtd. 14/6/2001 (Annexure P/3) holding that since alike matters are pending adjudication before the High Court, therefore, till the decision in the said matters is arrived, no order in respect of recording of the name can be passed and dismissed the application.