RAJULAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Commissioner, Bhopal, in an appeal arising out of the order passed in the proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling and regulation Act, 1976, (herein after referred to as 'the Ceiling Act') whereby the commissioner while dismissing the appeal has held that the petitioner will be entitled to compensation only for 0. 37 acre of land under the Land Acquisition Act and for remaining land at the rates fixed under the Ceiling Act.

(2.) THE brief facts are that the petitioner is the owner of 20. 70 acres of land as described in paragraph 5. 2 of the writ petition. The proceedings under the Land acquisition Act were initiated in the year 1986-87 for acquiring the petitioner's land in favour of M. P. Housing Board. The notification under section 4 (1) was published in the gazette on 21. 8. 1987 and the declaration was published in the gazette on 27. 11. 1987. Thereafter, the notices were served on the petitioner's father (since dead) under section 9 (3) on 17. 3. 88 and since the urgency clause under section 17 was invoked the possession was taken by the Housing Board on 11. 5. 1989. The award was thereafter passed on 11. 5. 1989 (annexure P/4) acquiring the petitioner's land and fixing the compensation.

(3.) THE dispute arose since the proceedings under the Ceiling Act were also going on simultaneously. The petitioner's father Rajjulal on 29. 10. 1991 submitted an application to the competent authority under the Ceiling Act to drop the ceiling proceedings on the ground that the award in the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the same land was already passed. The competent authority by order dated 19. 2. 1992 rejected the application filed by the petitioner's father finding him entitled to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act only in respect of 0. 37 acre and directing issuance of draft statement under section 8 (3) of the ceiling Act. Thereafter, the draft statement under section 8 (3) was issued by the competent authority on 28. 2. 1992. Aggrieved with the order dated 19. 2. 1992 the petitioner preferred appeal before the Commissioner and the Commissioner by order dated 14. 2. 2000 dismissed the petitioner's appeal affirming the order of the competent authority dated 19. 2. 1992. Aggrieved with this order passed by the commissioner in appeal, the petitioner has preferred present writ petition.