Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahendra Kumar Choubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 November, 2014
Writ Petition No.570/2012
19/11/2014
Shri Umesh Trivedi, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government
Advocate, for the respondents.
The only question involved in the present writ petition is whether the proceedings initiated against the petitioner for declaring the land of the petitioner as surplus under the M.P. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act (hereinafter referred t as 'the Act') would be deemed to be abated in terms of the provisions of Section 3 and 4 of the Repeal Act of 1999 or not.
The contention is that the land in question was not to be treated as completely vested in the State Government under the aforesaid Act and those proceedings were to be treated as abated in terms of Section 3 and 4 of the Repeal Act. When the application for recording of the name of the petitioner in the land in dispute was filed, such an application was rejected.
This writ petition was entertained. Notices were issued to respondents and a return is filed saying that the proceedings under Section 10(5) of the Act were completed and possession of the surplus land was already taken by the respondents/State. Therefore, the repeal of the Principal Act would not affect the said proceedings and in view of this, the application made by the petitioner was rightly rejected.
It is seen that no documents in proof of such facts have been placed on record. The order passed by the Collector on the application of the petitioner does not indicate that such findings were recorded by the Collector. While considering the application made by the petitioner, it was the duty of the Collector/Additional Collector to record the finding whether the repeal of the Principal Act would be applicable or not. In absence of such findings, the order passed by the Collector cannot be sustained.
In view of the aforesaid, the order impugned dated 27.4.2011 (Annexure P/2) is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Collector, Jabalpur to conduct an enquiry in respect of the aforesaid observations made by this Court and to pass a fresh order on the application of the petitioner after granting full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in that respect.
The writ petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
(K.K. Trivedi) Judge shukla-