Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jugal Kishore Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 July, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35030
1 WP-453-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 28th OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 453 of 2012
JUGAL KISHORE PATEL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manikant Sharma - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Sumit Raghuwanshi - Government Advocate for
respondents/State.
ORDER
Assailing the order dated 23.06.2011 passed by the Additional Collector, Jabalpur in Revenue Case No.09/A-90(B-9)/85-86 whereby an application submitted by the petitioners has been rejected, the present petition has been filed.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner No.1 is owner of agricultural land being Khasra No.19/1 area 0.951 hectare situated at village Bahdan, Tehsil and District Jabalpur and the petitioner No.2 is owner of land being Khasra No.19/2 area 0.951 hectare at village Bahdan, Tehsil and District Jabalpur. The proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1976') were initiated against the grandfather Tejilal and grandmother Tanti Bai. The revenue inspector submitted a report showing the land admeasuring 35030.35 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 05-08-2025 11:39:57 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35030 2 WP-453-2012 sq. meter as suplus and the final draft statement was prepared in terms of Section 9 of the Act of 1976 on 28.07.1988. However, the final draft statement was not served on the petitioners or their guardian. Grandmother and grandfather of the petitioners passed away on 11.11.1990 and 09.04.1991 respectively. Despite their death, the proceedings continue against them and a notice under Section 10(5) of the Act, 1976 was issued and served upon servant Vinod Kumar on 30.07.1993.
3. It is argued that the final draft statement should be served upon the holder and to other interested persons so as to give them opportunity to raise any objection. However, the final draft statement was not served upon the petitioner or any of the other interested persons. Thereafter, the land was notified as required under Section 10 of the Act of 1976 without fulfilling the conditions that all concerned persons should be served with the final draft statement. Thereafter notice under Section 10(5) of the Act of 1976 was issued against dead persons and it was directed that they should surrender the vacant land admeasuring 35030.35 sq. meter of Khasra No.19 to the State Government, which was served upon servant Vinod Kumar on 30.07.1993. It is argued that possession was never taken from the petitioners and they remained in cultivating possession of the land in question. Thereafter, no proceedings under Section 10(6) of the Act of 1976 have taken place.
4. It is argued that Act of 1976 was repealed by an Act of 1999 which came into force on 22.03.1999 which was adopted by the State Government. The petitioners' land was not affected by Old Act of 1976 and the petitioners are in cultivating possession of the land in question, Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 05-08-2025 11:39:57 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35030 3 WP-453-2012 which goes to show that the possession has not been taken over at any point of time. The case has to be considered in terms of Repealed Act, 1999 and the order declaring the land to be surplus on earlier occasion in pursuance to the provisions of the Act of 1976 has virtually lapsed as the possession was never taken away from the petitioners. An innocuous prayer is made to direct the Collector to reconsider all the aspects of the matter and pass a fresh order after giving audience to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an order passed by this Court in the case of Ghasi @ hassu Lodhi and others vs. The State of M.P. and others (W.P.No.30556 of 2023) dated 23.01.2023 wherein the entire provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and the Repealed Act, 1999 were taken note of and finding that mere possession on papers is not sufficient. The provisions of Section 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act of 1976 are mandatory to be complied with, therefore, this Court has remanded back the matter to the Collector to reconsider the same. The petitioners pray for a similar relief to be extended to them.
5. On notice being issued, a reply has been filed by the State authorities. They have denied all the petition's averments. It is contended that notice was issued in terms of Section 10(5) of the Act of 1976 and served upon the servant Shri Vinod Kumar. At the time of service of notice, there was no protest by Shri Vinod Kumar or to indicate that Tejilal is no more. Thus, after a period of more than 20 years, there cannot be any grievances to the petitioners. It is further contended that the provisions of Section 9 of the Act of 1976 does not provide for serving of final statement on all the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 05-08-2025 11:39:57 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35030 4 WP-453-2012 interested persons. The intention of the Legislature is that the objections, if any, received Sub-Section 4 of Section 8 of the Act of 1976 to be decided. Once the possession of the property is already taken way back after initiation of proper proceedings under Sections 10(5) of the Act of 1976, the provisions of the Repealed Act of 1999 is not applicable to the case of the petitioners. Under these circumstances, the proceedings cannot be declared to be illegal. The land in question has already been vested in the State Government. He has produced records pertaining to the Cealing proceedings. The have drawn attention of the Court to the records in support of his arguments. They have prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. Challenge is made to the order passed by the authority in rejecting the claim of the petitioners for declaring the proceedings initiated under the Act of 1976 to be lapsed in view of the Repealed Act of 1999, as the possession of the land has not been taken over at any point of time.
8. Mainly two grounds are raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition; firstly that notice under Section 10(5) of the Act of 1976 has been issued against dead persons and that too served upon servant Vinod Kumar; that in terms of Section 9 of the Act of 1976, a copy of the draft statement has to be supplied to all the concerned interested parties and that no proceedings under Section 10(6) of the Act of 1976 have been drawn by the authorities.
9. It is not in dispute that land bearing Khasra Nos.19 total area being 35030.35 sq. meter was declared to be surplus. Provisions of Sections Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 05-08-2025 11:39:57 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35030 5 WP-453-2012 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act of 1976 are mandatory provisions to be complied with in ceiling proceedings matters. It is the contention of the petitioners that the possession of the land has never been taken over by the Government at any point of time and they are still in cultivating possession of the property, whereas, according to the respondents, the possession was taken over from the petitioners. However, the fact remains a reminder was issued on 13.01.2000 directing the Tehsildar to take possession of the land in question and thereafter there were no documents to show that possession has been taken over by the authorities.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in the case of M/s A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation v. Tehsildar and others reported in 2025 Supreme (SC) 407 had an occasion to consider the aspect of the Urban Lands (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 and subsequent Repealed Act of 1999. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasized the necessity of taking actual physical possession of the property. The proceedings under Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act of 1976 were held to be mandatory and failure to comply with the said provisions, rendered the entire action to be void. Mere paper possession is insufficient to establish legal possession. The entire burden lies upon the State to demonstrate that they have actually taken over the possession of the property in accordance with law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has held as under:
"41. The propositions of law governing the issue of possession in context with Sections 10(5) and 10(6) respectively of the Act, 1976 read with Section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999 may be summed up thus:
[1] The Repeal Act, 1999 clearly talks about the possession being taken under Section 10(5) or Section 10(6) of the Act, 1976, as the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 05-08-2025 11:39:57 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35030 6 WP-453-2012 case may be.
[2] It is a statutory obligation on the part of the competent authority or the State to take possession strictly as permitted in law.
[3] In case the possession is purported to have been taken under Section 10(6) of the Act, 1976 the Court is still obliged to look into whether "taking of such possession" is valid or invalidated on any of the considerations in law.
[4] The possession envisaged under Section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999 is de facto and not de jure only.
[5] The mere vesting of "land declared surplus" under the Act without resuming "de facto possession" is of no consequence and the land holder is entitled to the benefit of the Repeal Act, 1999. [6] The requirement of giving notice under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 10 respectively is mandatory. Although the word "may" has been used therein, yet the word "may" in both the sub-sections should be understood as "shall" because a Court is obliged to decide the consequences that the legislature intended to follow from the failure to implement the requirement.
[7] The mere vesting of the land under sub-section (3) of Section 10 would not confer any right on the State Government to have de facto possession of the vacant land unless there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land before 18th March 1999. [8] The State has to establish by cogent evidence on record that there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land or surrender and delivery of peaceful possession under sub-section (6) of Section 10 or forceful dispossession under sub-section (6) of Section 10.
54. We are of the considered opinion that the issue as regards taking over of the actual physical possession of the excess land in accordance with the provisions of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 10 of the Act, 1976 could be said to be a mixed question of law and fact and not just a question of fact. Mixed question of law and fact refers to a question which depends on both law and fact for its solution. In resolving a mixed question of law and fact, a reviewing court must adjudicate the facts of the case and decide relevant legal issues at the same time. Mixed questions of law and fact are defined "as questions in which the historical facts are admitted or established, the rule of law is resolved and the issue is whether the facts satisfy the statutory standard, or to put it another way, whether the rule of law as applied to the established facts is or is not violated". [Bausch & Lomb v. United States C.I.T. 166, 169 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1997]"
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 05-08-2025 11:39:57NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35030 7 WP-453-2012
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further in the aforesaid case has considered the powers of the writ court to determine the disputed questions of fact and held as under:
"47. One stock argument available with the State in this type of cases is that the question whether the actual physical possession of the disputed land had been taken over or not is a seriously disputed question of fact, which the High Court should not adjudicate or determine in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. As a principle of law, there need not be any debate on such a proposition, but by merely submitting that it is a seriously disputed question of fact, the same, by itself, will not become a question of fact. To put it in other words, having regard to the materials on record, which falsifies the case of the State Government, then such materials should not be overlooked or ignored by the Court on the principle that the issue with regard to taking over of the actual physical possession would be a disputed question of fact.
48.Normally, the disputed questions of fact are not investigated or adjudicated by a writ court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But the mere existence of the disputed question of fact, by itself, does not take away the jurisdiction of this writ court in granting appropriate relief to the petitioner. In a case where the Court is satisfied, like the one on hand, that the facts are disputed by the State merely to create a ground for the rejection of the writ petition on the ground of disputed questions of fact, it is the duty of the writ court to reject such contention and to investigate the disputed facts and record its finding if the particular facts of the case, like the one at hand, was required in the interest of justice.
49. There is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to indicate that the High Court in the proceedings, like the one on hand, is debarred from holding such an inquiry. The proposition that a petition under Article 226 must be rejected simply on the ground that it cannot be decided without determining the disputed question of fact is not warranted by any provisions of law nor by any decision of this Court. A rigid application of such proposition or to treat such proposition as an inflexible rule of law or of discretion will necessarily make the provisions of Article 226 wholly illusory and ineffective more particularly Section 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act, 1976 respectively. Obviously, the High Court must avoid such consequences."Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 05-08-2025 11:39:57
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35030 8 WP-453-2012
12. If the facts of the present case are analyzed in view of aforesaid settled proposition of law, then it is seen that it is only a paper possession which is taken over by the authorities and not the actual possession. The petitioners claims to be in possession of the property in question. There is nothing on record to show that any proceedings under Section 248 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code were initiated against the petitioners for getting the land vacated at any point of time.
13. The Supreme Court in the cases of D.R. Somayajulu, Secretary, Diesel Loco Shed and South Eastern Railway House building Cooperative Society Limited, Vishakhapatnam & Others Vs. Attili Appala Swamy and Others reported in (2015) 2 SCC 390 and in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Hariram reported in (2013) 4 SCC 280 had an occasion to consider the aspect of peaceful dispossession and forceful dispossession and observed as under:-
"Peaceful dispossession
34. Sub-section (5) of Section 10, for the first time, speaks of "possession" which says that where any land is vested in the State Government under sub-section (3) of Section 10, the competent authority may, by notice in writing, order any person, who may be in possession of it to surrender or transfer possession to the State Government or to any other person, duly authorised by the State Government.
35. If de facto possession has already passed on to the State Government by the two deeming provisions under sub-section (3) of Section 10, there is no necessity of using the expression "where any land is vested" under sub-section (5) of Section 10. Surrendering or transfer of possession under sub-section (3) of Section 10 can be voluntary so that the person may get the compensation as provided under Section 11 of the Act early. Once there is no voluntary surrender or delivery of possession, necessarily the State Government has to issue notice in writing under sub-section (5) of Section 10 to surrender or deliver Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 05-08-2025 11:39:57 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35030 9 WP-453-2012 possession. Sub-section (5) of Section 10 visualises a situation of surrendering and delivering possession, peacefully while sub- section (6) of Section 10 contemplates a situation of forceful dispossession.
Forceful dispossession
36. The Act provides for forceful dispossession but only when a person refuses or fails to comply with an order under sub-section (5) of Section 10. Sub-section (6) of Section 10 again speaks of "possession" which says, if any person refuses or fails to comply with the order made under sub-section (5), the competent authority may take possession of the vacant land to be given to the State Government and for that purpose, force--as may be necessary--
can be used. Sub-section (6), therefore, contemplates a situation of a person refusing or fails to comply with the order under sub- section (5), in the event of which the competent authority may take possession by use of force. Forcible dispossession of the land, therefore, is being resorted to only in a situation which falls under sub-section (6) and not under sub-section (5) of Section 10. Sub- sections (5) and (6), therefore, take care of both the situations i.e. taking possession by giving notice, that is, "peaceful dispossession" and on failure to surrender or give delivery of possession under Section 10(5), then forceful dispossession" under sub-section (6) of Section 10.
37. The requirement of giving notice under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 10 is mandatory. Though the word "may" has been used therein, the word "may" in both the sub-sections has to be understood as "shall" because a court charged with the task of enforcing the statute needs to decide the consequences that the legislature intended to follow from failure to implement the requirement. Effect of non-issue of notice under sub-section (5) or sub-section (6) of Section 11 is that it might result in the landholder being dispossessed without notice, therefore, the word "may" has to be read as "shall"."
14. There is nothing on records to show that notice under Section 10(5) of the Act of 1976 was served to the petitioner or his ancestors. For the aforesaid purpose, provisions of Section 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 are important and are required to be seen. They Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 05-08-2025 11:39:57 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35030 10 WP-453-2012 are as under:
"10. Acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling limit. (1) As soon as may be after the service of the statement under section 9 on the person concerned, the competent authority shall cause a notification giving the particulars of the vacant land held by such person in excess of the ceiling limit and stating that-
(i) such vacant land is to be acquired by the concerned State Government; and
(ii) the claims of all persons interested in such vacant land may be made by them personally or by their agents giving particulars of the nature of their interests in such land, to be published for the information of the general public in the Official Gazette of the State concerned and in such other manner as may be prescribed. (2) After considering the claims of the persons interested in the vacant land, made to the competent authority in pursuance of the notification published under sub-section (1), the competent authority shall determine the nature and extent of such claims and pass such orders as it deems fit.
(3) 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 Government and upon the publication of such declaration, such land shall be deemed to have vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances with effect from the date so specified.
(4) During the period commencing on the date of publication of the notification under sub-section (1) and ending with the date specified in the declaration made under sub-section (3)-
(i) no person shall transfer by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise any excess vacant land (including any part thereof) specified in the notification aforesaid and any such transfer made in contravention of this provision shall be deemed to be null and void; and
(ii) no person shall alter or cause to be altered the use of such excess vacant land.
(5) Where any vacant land is vested in the State Government under sub-section (3), the competent authority may, by notice in writing, order any person who may be in possession of it to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the State Government or to any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 05-08-2025 11:39:57 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35030 11 WP-453-2012 within thirty days of the service of the notice.
(6) If any person refuses or fails to comply with an order made under sub-section ( 5), the competent authority may take possession of the vacant land or cause it to be given to the concerned State Government or to any person duly authorised by such State Government in this behalf and may for that purpose use such force as may be necessary."
15. If the Section 10(5) and Section 10(6) of the Act of 1976 are seen then it is clear that a notice in writing is to be served upon persons who are in possession of the land in question asking him to surrender or deliver possession within 30 days after publication of the notification under Sub- section 1 of Section 10 of the Act of 1976 and in case such a person refuse to deliver possession then proceedings under Section 10(6) of the Act of 1976 are required to be initiated. Heavy burden upon the State Government to show that written notice was served upon the petitioners and other who are in possession of the property and they have refused to hand over the possession of the property in question. Merely stating that they have refused to sign the documents or hand over the possession is not sufficient. It was only a paper possession which is taken by the authorities, which is not permissible. Counsel appearing for the State fairly submits that the notice under Section 10(5) was issued in the name of dead persons and was served upon the servant Vinod Kumar. This goes to show that there is non-compliance of Section 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act, 1976. Possession was never taken from the petitioners or his ancestors.
16. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as considering the records submitted by the authorities, the order impugned dated 23.06.2011 passed by the Additional Collector is per se illegal and is Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 05-08-2025 11:39:57 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35030 12 WP-453-2012 unsustainable. The same is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the respondent No.3/Collector to reexamine the case of the petitioners taking note of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation (supra) as well as by this Court in the case of Ghasi @ Ghassu Lodhi (supra) and pass a fresh order after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioners within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
17. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed off. No order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE sj Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 05-08-2025 11:39:57