DATTATREY RAO KALE Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The record of the ceiling case is available. Since pleadings are complete and on the request of the learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally.

(2.) The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of the order dated 09.12.2010 (Annexure- P/4) passed by respondent No.3 (Competent Authority) in Revenue Case No.56/A-90(B-9)/82-83. The Competent Authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act has initiated proceedings and passed the order impugned in pursuance to the direction given by this Court in Writ Petition No.1845/2001 [Khuman Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others]. The petitioner is basically assailing the ceiling proceedings initiated in respect of the land in question. It is contended that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are declared to be abated in view of the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Repeal Act, 1999') for the reason that the possession of the land in question has not been taken over by the respondents/Authorities and the same is still with the possession of the petitioner but the respondents without following the mandatory requirement of Section 10 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for brevity the 'Act, 1976') has got the land recorded in the name of State showing that they have taken possession over the land in question but it was only on paper. As per the petitioner, no physical possession was ever taken by the respondents/Authorities by following due procedure of law and accordingly the order passed by the Competent Authority in pursuance to the directions of this Court is illegal and therefore is sought to be quashed.

(3.) The facts in compendium leading to filing of the instant petition are that the petitioner is claiming himself to be the owner of the land situated over Khasra Nos.260 and 299 in village Tewar of settlement No.229 and Khasra Nos.2 and 58 (new Nos.144 and 167) in village Padua settlement No.160 and Khasra Nos.73, 74, 80 and 120 in village Silua of settlement No.422. As per the petitioner, the aforesaid land was non diverted agricultural land and does not come within the ambit of urban agglomeration as village Tewar is not situated at the distance of about 15 KM from Jabalpur and also the other villages are at the distance of about 3 KM from Tewar where the urban amenities are not available, therefore, the provisions of the Act, 1976 are not applicable.