Madhya Pradesh High Court
Maan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Revenue ... on 21 April, 2023
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar, Pranay Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
WRIT APPEAL No. 840/2022
BETWEEN:-
MAAN SINGH S/O LATE SHRI BAPU SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST PANWASA MAKSHI ROAD,
UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI ANIKET NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
REVENUE DEPARTMENT THROUGH THE
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN
DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY URBAN
LAND CEILING, UJJAIN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. DISTRICT TRADE AND INDUSTRIES
CENTRE THROUGH THE GENERAL
MANAGER INDUSTRIAL AREA, AGRASEN
NAGAR, UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( SHRI AKASH SHARMA, GOVT. ADVOCATE)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 03.03.2023
Pronounced on :21.04.2023
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, JUSTICE SUBODH
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA PARTHO
SARKAR
Signing time: 21-Apr-23
4:59:34 PM
2
ABHYANKAR passed the following:
JUDGEMENT
This appeal has been preferred under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam 2005 against the order dated 09.03.2022 passed in W.P.No.4614/2022; whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed.
Facts of the case, as noted by the learned judge of the writ Court in paragraphs 2 and 3 are as hereunder:-
"2. Lands involved in this case i.e. survey No.318/1 admeasuring 1.359 hectares and survey No.319/1 admeasuring 0.314 hectares thus total 1.673 hectares were owned by two real brothers Badri Singh and Chandra Singh. According to the petitioner under the family arrangement, these lands were in possession of his mother Bhawar Bai and petitioner himself since 1977-1978 which is evident from the entries of Khasra for the year 1977-78. Later on, the petitioner and his mother instituted Civil Suit No.119-A/1979 against Badri Singh and Chandra Singh which was disposed of vide judgment and decree dated 03.04.1984 by way of compromise as the Badri Singh and Chandra Singh have admitted the ownership of the petitioner and his mother. Thereafter the name of the petitioner and his mother came to be mutated in the revenue record for survey No.318/1 and 319/1 in the year 1987-88.
3. On account of the enforcement of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (For short, the `ULC Act'), Badri Singh and Chandra Singh had filed a statement under Section 6 in the year 1979 showing the aforesaid lands as vacant land. Upon and pursuant of the statement, a notification under Section 10(1) of the Ceiling Act, 1976 dated 30.07.1986 was published by respondent No.2 by recording the name of Badri Singh and Chandra Singh. Thereafter, a notification under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act was published on 14.03.1990 contending that the land in question was deemed to have vested in the State Government on 31.03.1990. According to the petitioner the aforesaid notifications under sections 10(1) and 10(3) of the ULC Act were published in contravention of revenue records which reflects the name of the petitioner and his mother as owner. No opportunity of hearing was given to Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA PARTHO SARKAR Signing time: 21-Apr-23 4:59:34 PM 3 them in ceiling proceedings by the competent authority. In consequences of aforesaid notifications issued under section 10(3) of the ULC Act, respondent No.2 issued a notice for taking possession under Section 10(5) of ULC Act on 18.08.1993 to Badri Singh and Chandra Singh. Since Badri Singh and Chandra Singh were not the true owners, therefore, any proceeding initiated pursuant to the notice dated 18.08.1993 are vitiated. The Tehsildar had taken ex-parte possession on 14.10.1993 upon drawing a panchnama and reported to the competent authority. The petitioner and his mother were Bhumiswami and in possession of Survey Nos.318/1 and 319/1 were not noticed at any stage before 31.03.2000 while respondent No.2 has ordered for correction of entry in revenue records due to vesting of land under the ceiling proceedings. According to the petitioner compensation assessment proceedings culminated into an order dated 25.05.2000 wherein respondent No.2 has assessed the compensation amount but has not paid the compensation to the petitioner, even the Badri Singh and Chandra Singh did not accept the possession."
After appreciating the documents filed by the petitioner on record, the learned judge, without issuing notice to the respondents, has dismissed the writ petition in limine which is assailed by the petitioner in this writ appeal. During the course of hearing the respondent/State was also directed to file reply to the petition and State's reply is also available on record.
Shri Aniket Naik, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as the learned judge of the writ Court has not appreciated the documents filed on record in their proper prospective and without even waiting for the reply from the State Government, the petition has been dismissed in limine. Counsel has submitted that even in the reply filed by the State Government in this writ appeal, the State Government has admitted in paragraph 3(b) that since Badri Singh and Chandra Singh were not the true owners, therefore, any proceedings initiated in pursuant to the notice dated 18.08.1983 are Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA PARTHO SARKAR Signing time: 21-Apr-23 4:59:34 PM 4 vitiated. Thus, counsel has submitted that on the aforesaid admission in the reply itself, the appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned order deserves to be set aside,.
Shri Naik has further submitted that it is an admitted fact that land in question was already entered into the names of petitioner and his mother prior to issuance of notifications under Section 10(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 (hereinafter to be referred to as "ULC Act") and attention of this Court is also invited to Khasra Panchshala for the year 1977-78 in which admittedly the name of Badri Singh has been mentioned as owner of the property whereas, in the column no.14, which refers to possession of the land, the name of the petitioner and his mother have been mentioned and thus, it is submitted that it cannot be said that there was any collusion between the parties in the decree dated 03.04.1984, which was much prior to the notification dated 30.07.1986, issued under Section 10(1) of ULC Act.
Counsel for the appellant has also submitted that even otherwise the notice was issued to the erstwhile land owners, who had no interest in the matter of acquisition of land which they had already transferred through a compromise decree.
Counsel has also drawn the attention of this court to section 15 of ULC Act which provides for ceiling limit on future acquisition by inheritance, bequest or by sale in execution of decree etc. and covers the case of the petitioner, who had obtained the land through a decree passed by a court of competent jurisdiction. Shri Naik has also submitted that the findings recorded by the learned judge of the writ court that the decree was collusive in nature was also erroneous for the reasons that the decree has been passed by a competent Court of jurisdiction and it has not been Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA PARTHO SARKAR Signing time: 21-Apr-23 4:59:34 PM 5 challenged by any of the parties concerned.
It is also submitted that the reliance placed by the learned judge of the writ Court in the case of State of Assam Vs. Bhaskar Jyoti Sharma reported as 2015 (5) SCC 321 was also misplaced and has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case, as the said case was regarding coercive taking over of the possession of the land in which the Supreme Court has held that such forcible possession would acquire legitimacy by sheer lapse of time whereas, in the present case, there was no such forcible possession even from the erstwhile owners of the land. It is also submitted that the land ceiling proceedings are liable to be abated in respect of survey No.318/1 and 319/1 on the basis of the Repeal Act of 1999 as the respondent no.2 has failed to take possession of the aforesaid survey numbers as provided under Section 10 of the ULC Act. It is also submitted that so called possession taken by respondent no.3 is erroneous on two counts firstly, absence of notice to the recorded true owners as mandated in sub section (5) of section 10 of the ULC Act, and secondly, issuance of notifications (Annexure P-8) under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act to such persons, who are not in possession, viz., Badri Singh and Chander Singh, coupled with the fact that it is also admitted by the State Government in their reply in this writ appeal that Badri Singh and Chandar Singh were not the true owners therefore any proceedings initiated in pursuant to the notification dated 18.08.1983 are vitiated. Lastly, it is also submitted that the notification under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act was published with an incorrect recorded Bhumiswami as per the revenue records thus, the acquisition on the said notification cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and in the absence of vesting/acquisition of subject land, it will tantamount to abatement of ceiling proceedings as per Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA PARTHO SARKAR Signing time: 21-Apr-23 4:59:34 PM 6 Section 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999.
Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the reliance placed by the writ Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal reported as (2020) 8 SCC 129 is also misplaced inasmuch as the petitioner is recorded land owner and is in possession of the land and his possession has never been taken physically but only on paper by drawing panchnama. Thus, it is submitted that the aforesaid judgement is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the prayer however, it is not denied that in para 3 of their reply it is stated that since Badri Singh and Chandar singh were not the true owners, hence, any proceedings initiated in pursuance to notice dated 18.08.1983 to them are vitiated.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
From the record, it is found that the cause of action to file the writ petition arose to the petitioner only on 02.02.2020, when the request for proposal was issued by the District Trade and Industries Center/respondent no.3 for development of the land in question.
The petitioner has sought the following relief in the writ petition:-
"7.1 Holding the ceiling proceedings in respect of survey No.318/1 and 319/1 admeasuring 1.673 at Gram Nimanwasa, Teshil and District Ujjain to be abated under Section 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999;
7.2 Quashing notification under Section 10(3) and 10(5) of Ceiling Act 1976 (Annexure P/7 and P/8 respectively) 7.3 Quashing RFP (Annexure P/14) to the extent of land Khasra 318/1 and 319/1 7.4 Correcting the revenue records;
7.5 Any other relief deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court; 7.6 Costs be awarded to the petitioner."Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA PARTHO SARKAR Signing time: 21-Apr-23 4:59:34 PM 7
On perusal of the record, it is found that the land in question was a joint family land and under the family arrangement it fell to the ownership of the petitioner and his mother Bhawar bai and their names are also recorded into Khasra entries 1977-1978. Although earlier, the said lands were entered into the names of Badri Singh and Chandar Singh, both sons of Kishan Singh, who happens to be the husband of the petitioner's father's sister. It is also found that in Civil Suit No.119-A/1979, which was filed by the petitioner and his mother against Badri Singh and Chandra Singh, was decreed through compromise, conferring the title to the petitioner and his mother Bhawar Bai vide decree dated 03.04.1984, and subsequently, the names of Bhawarbai and the petitioner were also recorded in revenue records of 1987-1988 in the capacity of Bhumiswami, and to demonstrate the same, the Khasra entries of 1987-1988 to 1991- 1992 have been placed on record.
It is an admitted fact that after the commencement of the ULC Act Badri Singh and Chandar Singh filed a statement under Section 6 of the same in the year 1979 wherein survey No.318/1 and survey no.319/1 was also mentioned as their own possessed vacant land which was not correct as even according to the Khasra entries (filed as Annexure-P/2) of 1977- 1978 the names of the petitioner and his mother were already entered into revenue record.
It is also found that the notification under Section 10(1) of the ULC Act dated 30.07.1986 was published by the respondent no.2 in which the names of Badri Singh and Chandar Singh were mentioned as the land owners and thereafter notification under 10(3) of the ULC Act was also published on 14.03.1990, wherein it was stated that land shall be deemed to have vested in the State government on 31.03.1990. Thus, the case of Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA PARTHO SARKAR Signing time: 21-Apr-23 4:59:34 PM 8 the petitioner is that both the aforesaid notifications under Section 10/1 and section 10/3 of the ULC Act was published in contravention to the revenue records of survey no.318/1 and 319/1 which were already reflecting the names of petitioner and his mother. Thus, the petitioner's case is that the entire proceedings was already vitiated as the petitioner and his mother were never noticed about the initiation of the proceedings of the ULC Act .
This court also finds that since the petitioner had already acquired the title of the property through the decree passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction, S. 15 of the ULC Act would also come into play and in such circumstances, the findings recorded by the learned judge of the writ Court that the decree was collusive in nature, cannot be countenanced in the eyes of law as the decree passed by a court of competent jurisdiction is binding on all the parties, unless it is stayed or set aside by a superior court, and even otherwise it is not even the case of the State, that the decree was collusive. At this juncture, we may fruitfully rely upon a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Thirunavukkarasu Mudaliar v. Gopal Naidu, (2006) 12 SCC 390 the relevant para of the same read as under:-
"26. The High Court has emphasised the principle of merger of decrees in coming to the conclusion that since the decree of the trial court merged with the decree of the superior court which attained finality, the decree to be executed is the one finally passed and, therefore, the tenant can wait till such time as the final decree is passed, meaning thereby till such time any final order is passed by the superior court on appeal or revision. We cannot approve of the reasoning of the High Court. It cannot be disputed that the decree which is finally to be executed is the decree of the final court, and that is the effect of merger of decrees. On principle, however, we are of the view that a decree passed by a court of competent jurisdiction is binding upon the parties, and even if the said decree is challenged in appeal or Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA PARTHO SARKAR Signing time: 21-Apr-23 4:59:34 PM 9 revision it does not cease to operate to bind the parties unless it is stayed by the superior court or any interim direction is made by the superior court rendering the decree ineffective or inoperative for the time being, subject to the final decision. A judgment-debtor under ordinary civil law is not permitted to ignore the decree passed by the court. He must obtain an interim direction from the superior court absolving him of his obligations under the decree, or otherwise suffer the consequences which follow the decree. He cannot be heard to say that merely because an appeal or revision is pending, the decree is rendered ineffective. The parties are bound by the decree, and in case the appellate court modifies or sets aside the decree the judgment-debtor may claim restitution."
(emphasis supplied) In view of the aforesaid dictum of the Supreme Court, this court is of the considered opinion that a decree passed by a court of competent jurisdiction can certainly not be interfered with in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that it is collusive in nature, specially when the decree is not even questioned by either of the parties.
In such circumstances, when the petitioner had already become the Bhumiswami in the year 1987, the vesting of the land under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act which bears the names of Badri Singh and Chandar Singh cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, and similarly, taking the possession under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act on 18.08.1993, from Badri Singh and Chandra Singh is also vitiated on the same ground that the land actually belonged to the petitioner and his mother. In the notice dated 18.08.1993, issued under Section 10(5) of ULC Act it is endorsed that Badri Singh has already died and it was served on Chandar Singh only, this Court finds force in the submissions as advanced by Shri Naik that since Badri Singh (now dead) and Chander Singh had no interest in the property as the title was already transferred to the petitioner and his mother through the decree dated 03.04.1984. Thus, even when the possession was taken by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA PARTHO SARKAR Signing time: 21-Apr-23 4:59:34 PM 10 competent officer on 14.01.1993, on such notice, and the petitioner was not made aware of the same, as according to the possession Panchnama dated 14.10.1993, the possession was taken in the absence of Chander Singh, it cannot be said that the land was excess in the hands of Badri Singh and Chandar Singh when they were not the owners in possession of the land in question. The petitioner has also placed on record the Khasra entries of the year 1997-1998 to 1999-2000 in which the names of the petitioner and his mother is mentioned as the land owners. Thus, when the petitioner's possession is also admitted in the revenue record in the year 1999-2000, it is difficult to perceive that its physical possession was taken from them vide panchanama dated 14.10.1992 which bears the name of Chander Singh.
So far as the reliance placed by the writ Court on Indore Development Authority (supra) is concerned, the relevant para 344 on which the writ court has relied upon, reads as under:-
"344. In this context, it is noteworthy that the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, was repealed in the year 1999; thereafter, claims were raised. After repeal, it was claimed that actual physical possession has not been taken by the State Government as such repeal has the effect of effacing the proceedings of taking possession, which it was alleged, was not in accordance with the law. In State of Assam v. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma [State of Assam v. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma, (2015) 5 SCC 321] , submission was raised by the State of Assam that physical possession has been taken over by the competent authority and it was submitted on behalf of landowner that procedure prescribed under Section 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, was not followed. It was before taking possession under Section 10(6) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the notification under Section 10(5) was necessary; thus, no possession can be said to have been taken within the meaning of Section 3 of the Repeal Act. The question this Court had to consider was whether actual physical possession was taken over in that case by the competent authority. The State of Assam submitted that though possession was taken over in the year 1991, may be unilaterally and without notice to the landowner. It was urged that mere non- compliance with Section 10(5) would be insufficient to attract the provisions of Section 3 of the Repeal Act. This Court repelled the Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA PARTHO SARKAR Signing time: 21-Apr-23 4:59:34 PM 11 submission of the landowner and held as under : (SCC pp. 329-30, paras 15-17) :-
"15. The High Court has held [Bhaskarjyoti Sarma v. State of Assam, 2010 SCC OnLine Gau 377] that the alleged dispossession was not preceded by any notice under Section 10(5) of the Act. Assuming that to be the case all that it would mean is that on 7- 12-1991 when the erstwhile owner was dispossessed from the land in question, he could have made a grievance based on Section 10(5) and even sought restoration of possession to him no matter he would upon such restoration once again be liable to be evicted under Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act upon his failure to deliver or surrender such possession. In reality therefore unless there was something that was inherently wrong so as to affect the very process of taking over such as the identity of the land or the boundaries thereof or any other circumstance of a similar nature going to the root of the matter hence requiring an adjudication, a person who had lost his land by reason of the same being declared surplus under Section 10(3) would not consider it worthwhile to agitate the violation of Section 10(5) for he can well understand that even when the Court may uphold his contention that the procedure ought to be followed as prescribed, it may still be not enough for him to retain the land for the authorities could the very next day dispossess him from the same by simply serving a notice under Section 10(5). It would, in that view, be an academic exercise for any owner or person in possession to find fault with his dispossession on the ground that no notice under Section 10(5) had been served upon him.
16. The issue can be viewed from another angle also. Assuming that a person in possession could make a grievance, no matter without much gain in the ultimate analysis, the question is whether such grievance could be made long after the alleged violation of Section 10(5). If actual physical possession was taken over from the erstwhile landowner on 7-12-1991 as is alleged in the present case, any grievance based on Section 10(5) ought to have been made within a reasonable time of such dispossession. If the owner did not do so, forcibly taking over of possession would acquire legitimacy by sheer lapse of time. In any such situation, the owner or the person in possession must be deemed to have waived his right under Section 10(5) of the Act. Any other view would, in our opinion, give a licence to a litigant to make a grievance not because he has suffered any real prejudice that needs to be redressed but only because the fortuitous circumstance of a Repeal Act tempted him to raise the issue regarding his dispossession being in violation of the prescribed procedure.
17. Reliance was placed by the respondents upon the decision of this Court in Hari Ram case [State of U.P. v. Hari Ram, (2013) 4 Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA PARTHO SARKAR Signing time: 21-Apr-23 4:59:34 PM 12 SCC 280 : (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 583] . That decision does not, in our view, lend much assistance to the respondents. We say so, because this Court was in Hari Ram case [State of U.P. v. Hari Ram, (2013) 4 SCC 280 : (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 583] considering whether the word "may" appearing in Section 10(5) gave to the competent authority the discretion to issue or not to issue a notice before taking physical possession of the land in question under Section 10(6). The question whether breach of Section 10(5) and possible dispossession without notice would vitiate the act of dispossession itself or render it non est in the eye of the law did not fall for consideration in that case. In our opinion, what Section10(5) prescribes is an ordinary and logical course of action that ought to be followed before the authorities decided to use force to dispossess the occupant under Section 10(6). In the case at hand if the appellant's version regarding dispossession of the erstwhile owner in December 1991 is correct, the fact that such dispossession was without a notice under Section 10(5) will be of no consequence and would not vitiate or obliterate the act of taking possession for the purposes of Section 3 of the Repeal Act. That is because Bhabadeb Sarma, erstwhile owner, had not made any grievance based on breach of Section 10(5) at any stage during his lifetime implying thereby that he had waived his right to do so.'"
This Court held that provisions of the Repeal Act could not be extended in such a case where possession has been taken without following the procedure, and the landowner cannot retain the land. This Court also observed that once possession has been taken over in the year 1991, any grievance as to non-compliance of Section 10(5) ought to have been made within a reasonable time of such dispossession. By sheer lapse of time, the possession would acquire legitimacy. Thus, the owner or the person in possession must be deemed to have waived his right under Section 10(5) of the Act. This Court also observed that only because of the fortuitous circumstance of a Repeal Act, which confers certain rights, the litigation had tempted the landowner to raise the issue regarding his dispossession being in violation of the prescribed procedure. It is clear from the aforesaid decision that such claims cannot be entertained, and any such dispute raised belatedly was repelled by this Court."
(emphasis supplied) In the considered opinion of this court, the aforesaid decision is distinguishable on facts, and has no application in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the case at hand, the petitioner's contention Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA PARTHO SARKAR Signing time: 21-Apr-23 4:59:34 PM 13 is that the notices u/s.10 of the ULC Act were given in the name of Badri Singh and Chander Singh who were not the owner of the land and symbolic possession was also taken from them despite the fact that even in the revenue record, the name of the petitioner and his mother Bhawarbai is entered by the Revenue officers, thus, the Notices issued u/s.10 and the taking of possession pursuant thereto from Badri Singh and Chander Singh was clearly vitiated. Merely because the petitioner has challenged the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the ULC Act of 1976, in the year 2022, it cannot be discarded as a thumb rule . This Court is also of the opinion, that so far as the Repeal Act of 1999 is concerned, apparently it came into force in the year 1999, and had it been intention of the petitioner to take the advantage of the aforesaid Act of 1999, there was no reasons for him to wait for further 22 years, if it is presumed that he was not having the possession of the land.
This Court is also of the opinion that even the State has admitted this factual position in paragraph 3(b) of their reply which reads as under:-
"b) In consequences of aforesaid notifications issued under section 10(3) of the ULC Act, respondent no.2 issued a notice for taking possession under Section 10(5) of ULC Act on 18.08.1993 to Badri Singh and Chandra Singh. Since Badri Singh and Chanra Singh were not the true owners, therefore, any proceeding initiated pursuant to the notice dated 18.08.1993 are vitiated. The Tehsildar had taken ex-parte possession on 14.10.1993 upon drawing a panchnama and reported to the competent Authority. The appellant and his mother were Bhumiswami and in possession of survey Nos.318/1 and 319/1 were not noticed at any stage before 31.03.2000 while respondent no.2 has ordered for correction of entry in revenue records due to vesting of land under the ceiling proceedings."
(emphasis supplied) Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA PARTHO SARKAR Signing time: 21-Apr-23 4:59:34 PM 14 A perusal of the aforesaid pleadings clearly reveals that even the State has admitted that Badri Singh and Chander Singh were not the true owner of the lands, therefore, any proceeding initiated pursuant to the notice dated 18.08.1993 are vitiated.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 09.03.2022 is hereby set aside and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby allowed. Consequently, the impugned RPF dated 02.02.2020 is hereby quashed so far as it relates to Survey no.318/1 and Survey no.319/1 admeasuring 1.673 hectares at gram Nirmanwasa Tehsil and District Ujjain, and it is also held that the ceiling proceedings in respect of the aforesaid lands stand abated under Section 4 of the Repeal Act of 1999, and resultantly, the notifications issued under Section 10(3) and Section 10(5) of the ULC Act are also hereby quashed.
Accordingly, the writ appeal stands allowed and disposed of.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) (PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
das
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA PARTHO
SARKAR
Signing time: 21-Apr-23
4:59:34 PM