Dhaniram vs State of M.P. and Another

Aran Mishra, J.

The petitioner is challenging the order passed by the competent authority, under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, Jabalpur in Revenue Case No. 941/A-90/(B-9)/76-77 passed on 22.11.86 (Annex. P-5). The competent authority declared 27,343-082 sq. M. land as surplus. The holder was given 6000 sq.m. land. It appears that against that order Annex. P-5 no appeal was preferred. Notifaction u/s 10(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was issued on 31.12.87. The gazette notification was also made on 22.2.1988. Thereafter steps were also taken u/s 10(3) of the Ceiling Act. The writ petition has been preferred after about 15 years after passing of the order by the competent authority.

The petitioner submits that the land was recorded as agricultural land in the revenue record. Hence action of respondents 2 declaring the land surplus is arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Smt. Atia Mohammadi Begum Vs. State of U.P. and others[OVERRULED], ) which has been over ruled in The State of A.P. and ors Vs. N. Audikesava Reddy and ors, . It is urged by the petitioner that in the year 1976 no master plan was in force in Jabalpur. It came into force from 8.2.88. Thus the order passed by the competent authority is not proper. It is also urged that the order is void. Reliance was placed on State of M.P. v. Babulal ( 1980 R.N. 503). Decision of this court in Suderbai & Ors. v. State of M.P. & Anr. (W.P. 6186/01) has also been referred. Petitioner further submits that order Annex. P-5 be quashed. Firstly, in my opinion the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this court. Once the land was declared surplus in 1986 and steps were taken under sub section (3) of section 10, of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Sub-section (3) of section 10 provides that at any time after the publication of the notification under sub section (1), the competent authority may, by notification published in the official gazette of the State concerned, declare that the excess vacant land referred to in the notification published under sub-section (1) shall, with effect from such date as may be specified in the declaration, be deemed to have been acquired by the State Govt. and upon the publication of such declaration, such land shall be deemed to have vested absolutely in the State Govt. free from all encumbrances with effect from the date so specified.

The writ petition can be dismissed only on the ground of latches. Petitioner cannot be allowed to reopen the case after 10-15 years once the right stands concluded finally. In case petitioner was aggrieved by the order passed by the competent authority, it was for him to take the steps within the reasonable time. The order has attained finality, the right have been settled. No proceedings were pending when the Repeal Act came into force. No appeal was filed against the order passed by the competent authority passed in the year 1986. Now the questions cannot be reopened at this stage. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Sunderbai''s case (supra). The question of delay was not considered in the said writ petition and this court has held that reliance on Atia Mohammadi Begum''s case (supra) is not available as that stands over ruled by the decision of the Apex Court. Paras 11,13 and 14 N. Audikesava Reddy (supra) are quoted below-

Development and town planning are ongoing processes and they go on changing from time to time depending upon the local needs. That apart, the definition of the ''master plan'' in section 2(h) is very significant. It reads as under :

2(h) "Master plan'' in relation to an area within an urban agglomeration or any part thereof, means the plan (by whaterver name called) prepared under any law for the time being in force or in pursuance of an order made by the State Govt. for the development of such area or part thereof and providing for the stages by which such development shall be carried out.

The above provision, inter alia, contemplates the master plan prepared under any law for the time being in force for development of an area. The plan shall also provide for the stages by which such development shall be carried out. It is evident from the aforesaid definition of master plan that it. takes in view any plan prepared even subsequent to the coming into force of the Act. Further the explanation of to section 6(1), as noticed above, very significantly provides that every person holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit at the commencement of the Act shall file a statement before the competent authority and ''the commencement of the Act'' under clause (2) would be when the land becomes vacant for any reason whatsoever. Therefore, the date of commencement of the Act in a case where the land, which was not vacant earlier, would be the date on which such land becomes vacant land. It thus contemplates a situation of land, and being vacant, becoming vacant due to preparation of a master plan subsequent to 17th February, 1976. Further, the provisions of the Act require filing of a statement u/s 6,7,15 and 16 from time to time as and when land acquires the character of a vacant land. Obligation to file statement under the Act arises when a person comes to hold any vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit, which date necessarily may not be 17th February, 1976. It would all depend on the facts and circumstances of each case."

In these matters, however, we are not concerned with question as to the consequences of filing of a statement by a person under a wrong impression that the vacant land held by him is in excess of ceiling limit if it was not so when he filed a statement. This aspect is left open to be decided in a appropriate case.

Before concluding, we wish to place on record our deep appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Senior Advocate, who on our request very readily agreed to assist the court as amicus curiae.

Counsel for the petitioner also raised the submission that the land was agricultural land and could not be included in the master plan. Section 4 of the Repeal Act reads as under :

Abatement of legal proceedings-All proceedings relating to any order made or purported to be made under the Principal Act pending immediately before the commencement of this Act, before any court, tribunal or other authority shall abate:

Provided that this section shall not apply to the proceedings relating to sections 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Principal Act in so far as such proceedings are relatable to the land, possession of which has been taken over by the State Govt. or any person duly authorised by State Govt. in this behalf or by the competent authority.

For applicability of section 4 it is necessary that proceedings must be pending. In the instant case no proceedings were pending. As such section 4 of the Repeal Act does not apply. In the instant case no proceedings were pending. Steps were taken for taking possession. Land stood vested in the State. These questions cannot be now reopened after 15 years in 2002.

The writ petition is without merit and is dismissed. Cost on parties.