Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raghuraj Singh Thakur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 August, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53565
1 WP-8657-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 21st OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 8657 of 2019
RAGHURAJ SINGH THAKUR AND ANOTHER
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Munish Saini and Shri S.K. Mishra - Advocates for the
petitioners.
Shri Gajendra Parashar - Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.
ORDER
Assailing the order dated 22-06-2018 passed by respondent No.2, whereby claim of the petitioners for releasing of the land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Repeal Act, 1999') has been rejected without considering the facts of the matter.
2 . It is the case of the petitioners that the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1976') came into force with effect from 17th February, 1976 after receiving the Presidential Assent and was implemented in the State of Madhya Pradesh in five districts namely, Jabalpur, Bhopal, Indore, Ujjain and Gwalior. The Act was brought into existence for imposition of ceiling on the vacant land in Urban Agglomerations for acquisition of such land in excess of the ceiling Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 30-10-2025 10:43:35 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53565 2 WP-8657-2019 limits. Section 2(o) of the Act of 1976 defines Urban Land. A bare reading of the definition of Urban Land makes it clear that the land did not include any such land which is mainly used for the purpose of agriculture. The competent Authority in Revenue Case No.270/A-90(B-9)/81-82 without following the due procedure preferred a draft statement declaring the land of the petitioners to be surplus on 17-09-1987 and sent the letter for final draft under Section 9 of the Act of 1976. Thereafter, notice under Section 10(5) of the Act of 1976 was issued. It is the case of the petitioners that the notices as required under the Act were never issued and were never served to the petitioners' father. Thereafter, the possession letter was issued by the respondents demonstrating the fact that the possession was taken by the respondents ex-parte exercising powers under Section 10(6) of the Act of 1976. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners' father had never surrendered his land and the possession of the land was never taken by the Authorities. The respondents have never issued any notice under Section 10(6) of the Act of 1976 which is mandatory in nature. It is his case that once the possession has not been taken in terms of Section 10(6) of the Act of 1976, the entire proceedings with respect to possession are void ab initio . Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of this Court to document Annexure-P/2 which is a notice dated 30/08/1993 issued under Section 10(5) of the Act of 1976 to surrender the land within a period of 30 days. It was clearly mentioned in the said notice that if the land is not surrendered, then the proceedings under Section 10(6) of the Act of 1976 will be initiated for taking possession of the land. No such proceedings were Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 30-10-2025 10:43:35 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53565 3 WP-8657-2019 initiated by the Authorities. It is further pointed out that no compensation amount is paid to them.
3. It is argued that an affidavit of Kotwar of the village shows that the possession of the land was never taken by the Authorities and the petitioners' father was in continuous possession of the property and thereafter petitioners. Being aggrieved by the order dated 17-09-1987, petitioners' father Late Gaya Singh filed an Appeal before the Commissioner being Appeal No.152/A-90 (B-9)/1998-99. The Appeal was pending and during the pendency of the Appeal, the State Government has brought into force the Repeal Act, 1999 on 22-03-1999 wherein Section 4 clearly provides that in case any proceedings pertaining to the Principal Act are pending before the commencement of this Act, the same shall stand abated. It is argued before this Court that no efforts were made by the Authorities at any point of time to take over the physical possession of the property from the petitioners. Petitioners' father as well as the petitioners are still in possession of the property and they have filed documents pertaining to taking of agricultural loan on the said property and annexed the electricity bills to demonstrate the same. Petitioners' father filed an application before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court vide order dated 03-04-2000 has passed an order declaring the proceedings initiated under the Act of 1976 to have abated in terms of Section 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999 but despite of the same, the land was not recorded in the name of the petitioners.
4 . Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has brought to the notice of this Court an order dated 30/09/2011 passed by Division Bench of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 30-10-2025 10:43:35 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53565 4 WP-8657-2019 this Court in Writ Petition No.16538 of 2011 filed by Nagrik Upbhogta Marg Darshak Manch who has agitated the issue by way of filing a Public Interest Litigation seeking quashment of proceedings initiated under the Act of 1976 whereby the lands which were used for agriculture were acquired. The said petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to approach the competent authority by filing a representation. Another Writ Petition was filed by Ceeling Peedit Kisan Samiti being W.P. No.1880/2015 which was disposed of on 06-04-2015 with a liberty to raise the question before the competent Authority along with all the relevant documents to show his peaceful possession over the property i.e. land bearing Khasra Nos. 67/2, 250, 295/1, 295/2 and 295/3 total area 2.691 hectares along with the electricity bills. However, in the most mechanical manner without considering the factual aspect of the matter and without appreciating the provisions of the Repeal Act, 1999 as well as the Principal Act of 1976, rejected the application of the petitioners. The reason assigned while rejecting the claim of the petitioners is that the possession of the land was taken on 06-12-1990 and the land has been recorded in the name of the State Government, which is contrary to their own documents.
5 . Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Hari Ram reported in (2013) 4 SCC 280 and the judgment dated 19/05/2025 passed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. Ramprasad Patel in Writ Appeal No.1125 of 2024 which was disposed of in analogous hearing along with Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 30-10-2025 10:43:35 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53565 5 WP-8657-2019 other Writ Appeals as well as a recent judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 27/02/2025 in the case of M/s A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation Vs. The Tahsildar and Others in Civil Appeal Nos.4526-4527 of 2024. He has prayed for issuance of a direction to the Authorities to record the name of the petitioners in revenue records and the order impugned rejecting the claim of the petitioners be quashed.
6 . No reply is filed on behalf of the Authorities, rather they have produced the records pertaining to the ceiling proceedings.
7 . Learned counsel appearing for the State has contended from the records that the land of the petitioners was declared surplus in terms of Section 10(3) of the Act of 1976 and a notice under Section 10(5) for surrendering the land in favour of the Government was issued on 30-08-1993 failing which the proceedings under Section 10(6) of the Act will be initiated against the petitioners. Thereafter, possession of the land was taken by the Authorities and the land vested in the State Government. The name of the State Government was recorded on the said land in revenue records. Petitioners' father himself has not appeared before the Authorities, therefore ex parte proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The compensation to the tune of Rs.12,030.47 was given for total surplus land admeasuring 40101.58 square meter. The possession document dated 30-08- 1993 shows that the possession was taken by the Authorities. Therefore, after a lapse of more than 3 decades from the date of taking over the possession, no question arises for reverting back the land again in favour of the petitioners. He has prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 30-10-2025 10:43:35NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53565 6 WP-8657-2019
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9 . The record indicates that the notification declaring the land of the petitioners to be surplus as per the records was issued declaring the land admeasuring 40101.58 square meter situated in village Maharajpur, survey numbers 67/2, 250, 295/1, 295/2 and 295/3. Thereafter notice under Section 10(5) of the Act was issued asking the petitioners' father to surrender the land which is declared surplus but petitioners' father has never surrendered the land. The notice dated 30-08-1993 under Section 10(5) of the Act of 1976 reads as under:-
"एत ारा आपको सूिचत कया जाता है क ाम महाराजपुर न.ब. ६६४ प.ह. २० थत ख.नं. ६७, २५०, २९५/१, २९५/२, २९५/३ म से भूिम रकवा ४०१०१.५८ वगमीटर नगर भूिम सीमा अिधिनयम १९७६ क धारा 10(3) के अंतगत अितशेष घो षत क जाकर शासन म. . म वै त क जा चुक है ।
अत: उ अिधिनयम क धारा-10(5) के अंतगत आपको सूिचत कया जाता है क 30 दन के भीतर तहसीलदार (नजूल) जबलपुर को ऊपर िल खत अितशेष घो षत भूिम रकवा ४०१०१.५८ वगमीटर का क जा दे व। य द िनधा रत अविध म आपने क जा नह ं दया तो नगर भूिम सीमा अिधिनयम क धारा - 10(6) के अंतगत क जा लेने क कायवाह क जावेगी।"
10. From the perusal of the aforesaid notice, it is clear that in case the petitioners' father fails to voluntarily surrender the land, then the proceedings under Section 10(6) of the Act will be drawn against him for taking over the possession forcefully and thereafter, the possession was taken from the petitioners' father as is reflected from order-sheet dated 28/11/1993. From the perusal of the aforesaid, it is seen that the possession of the land has been taken ex parte.
11. The relevant provisions of the Act are required to be seen. The very purpose for enactment of the Act of 1976 is creating a ceiling on urban Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 30-10-2025 10:43:35 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53565 7 WP-8657-2019 holding of land to regulate construction of building on such lands and matters connected therewith and also to prevent concentration of urban land in the hands of few persons with an objective of better development of the urban areas and to cope with the problems of housing being faced in urban agglomerations in large cities. The State was required to initiate projects for common good in such urban areas and after declaring the land to be surplus and vested in the State in terms of Section 10(3) of the Act of 1976, was required to follow the procedure as provided under Section 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act because merely vesting of land under Section 10(3) of the Act does not imply any deemed possession for which a separate procedure was provided. The competent Authority was required to prepare a draft statement with respect to the ceiling limits of the land held by a particular person. Objections were to be invited and after disposal of the said objections, a notification under Section 10(1) of the Act was required to be issued pointing out the fact that such vacant land is to be acquired by the Government and thereafter a notification in terms of Section 10(3) was required to be issued.
12. Section 10(4) of the Act provides for freezing of transfer of excess vacant land between the period from date of publication of notification under Section 10(1) of the Act of 1976 and Section 10(3) and thereafter the possession of the land was to be taken by the Government in terms of Section 10(5) of the Act of 1976, whereby they were required to issue notice in writing to the person to surrender or deliver the possession to the State Government within 30 days and in case they fail to do so, then proceedings under Section 10(6) of the Act were required to be initiated. Once the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 30-10-2025 10:43:35 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53565 8 WP-8657-2019 possession is delivered, the proceedings under Section 11 regarding assessment and payment of compensation to the concerned were to be initiated.
1 3 . If the aforesaid provisions are applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case, then it is seen that after issuance of notice under Section 10(5) of the Act and when the petitioners' father had not surrendered the land voluntarily, no notice under Section 10(6) of the Act of 1976 was issued. It is the claim of the petitioners that they are still in possession of the property in question. There is no document on record to show that compensation amount is paid to the father of the petitioners. It is also pointed out that an Appeal was preferred by petitioners' father with the aid of Section 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999, on which an order has been passed by the Appellate Authority on 03-04-2000, which reads as under:-
"3.4.2000- करण तुत ।
म य दे श राजप दनाँक 10.3.2000 म राज व वभाग क कािशत अिधसूचना मांक एफ-1-6- 93-सात-9 दनांक १ माच 2000 के अनुसार म य दे श वधान मंडल के ारा दनांक 17.2.2000 को संक प पा रत कर संसद ारा पा रत नगर भूिम (अिधकतम सीमा तथा विनयमन) िनरसन अिधिनयम, 1999 ( जसे एत प ात ् िनरसन अिधिनयम कहा जावेगा) को अंगीकृ त कया गया है । उपरो ानुसार अंगीकृ त कये जाने से उ िनरसन अिधिनयम ' दे श म भी दनाँक 17.2.2000 से भावशील हो गया है । उ िनरसन अिधिनयम क धारा 4 के ावधान के अनुसार कसी यायालय के सम मूल अिधिनयम के ावधान के तहत लं बत सम त कायवा हयां उ िनरसन अिधिनयम भावशील होने क ितिथ से वतः समा हो गई है । वचाराधीन करण म मूल अिधिनयम क पारा 11, 12, 13 या 14 के तहत कोई कायवाह वचाराधीन नह ं है । चू ँ क यह वचाराधीन करण िनरसन अिधिनयम अंगीकृ त करने के दनांक 17.2.2000 से वतः समा हो गया है । अतः अधीन थ यालय का करण वापस कर करण न तीब कया जावे तथा अिभलेखागार भेजा जावे।"Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 30-10-2025 10:43:35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53565 9 WP-8657-2019 1 4 . From perusal of the aforesaid, it is clear that the ceiling proceedings were pending consideration and with the enactment of the Repeal Act, 1999, the proceedings stood abated. Petitioners' father submitted a representation to the Authorities in pursuance to the order passed in W.P. No.16538/2011, which was rejected on 22/06/2018 (Annexure-P/9), wherein the Authorities have failed to consider the aforesaid aspect regarding voluntarily surrender of the land by the petitioners' father as well as the fact that no proceedings under Section 10(6) of the Act of 1976 were initiated by the Authorities. The order is silent regarding the same. From the operative paragraph of the order, it is seen that the reason assigned by the Authorities is that the possession of the land was taken on 06-12-1990 which is contrary to the order-sheet of the records which shows that the ex-parte possession of the land was taken on 28-11-1993. Even the notice under Section 10(5) of the Act was issued on 30-08-1993 for surrender of the land, then how the Authorities have arrived at a conclusion rejecting the claim of the petitioners observing that the possession of the land was taken way back in the year 1990.
15. The similar aspect was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Prasad Patel (supra) in analogous hearing with other Writ Appeals, wherein it has been held as under:-
"48. The Notification dated 05.10.1976 is a notification under Section 2(d) under which Additional Collector has been notified as Competent Authority. Further as per Section 10(5) the order has to be issued by the Competent Authority and none else. If Section 10(5) is minutely read, then it is evident that the Competent Authority has to issue a notice in writing under this Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 30-10-2025 10:43:35 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53565 10 WP-8657-2019 provision to deliver the possession of the land to the State Government or to the person authorized by the State Government. The subsequent order of the State Government dated 12.02.1979 authorizes the Tahsildar (Nazul) to receive possession in pursuance of order under Section 10(5). Thus, by a conjoint reading of Notification dated 05.10.1976 and the order dated 12.02.1979, it is evident that it will be the Competent Authority, who will issue notice/order under Section 10(5) and only thereupon the Tahsildar Nazul would be authorized to take over the possession of the land.
However, in the present case, undisputedly the notice/order under Section 10(5) had also been signed by the Tahsildar Nazul, which cannot be said to be a notice/order issued under authority of law. Therefore, in our considered opinion the leaned Single Judge has correctly discarded the said notice under Section 10(5) as having been issued by an incompetent Authority i.e. the Tahsildar Nazul and rightly allowed the writ petition."
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Ram (supra) has held as under:-
"39. The abovementioned directives make it clear that sub-section (3) takes in only de jure possession and not de facto possession, therefore, if the landowner is not surrendering possession voluntarily under sub-section (3) of Section 10, or surrendering or delivering possession after notice, under Section 10(5) or dispossession by use of force, it cannot be said that the State Government has taken possession of the vacant land.
40. The scope of Act 33 of 1976 came up for consideration before this Court on a few occasions, reference may be made to certain judgments, even though there has been no elaborate discussion of the provision of the Act and its impact on the Repeal Act.
Reference may be made to Pt. Madan Swaroop Shrotiya Public Charitable Trust v. State of U.P. [(2000) 6 SCC 3 2 5 ] , Ghasitey Lal Sahu v. Competent Authority [(2004) 13 SCC 452], Mukarram Ali Khan v. State of U.P. [(2007) 11 SCC 90] and Vinayak Kashinath Shilkar v. Collector and Competent Authority [(2012) 4 SCC 718 : (2012) 2 SCC (Civ) 652].
42. The mere vesting of the land under sub-section (3) Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 30-10-2025 10:43:35 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53565 11 WP-8657-2019 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 18-3-1999. The State has to establish that there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land or surrender and delivery of peaceful possession under sub-section (5) of Section 10 or forceful dispossession under sub-section (6) of Section 10. On failure to establish any of those situations, the land owner or holder can claim the benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal Act. The State Government in this appeal could not establish any of those situations and hence the High Court is right in holding that the respondent is entitled to get the benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal Act."
17. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with a similar situation in the case of M/s A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation (supra) and after considering all the judgments passed on the earlier occasion has summed up the conclusions 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 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.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 30-10-2025 10:43:35NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53565 12 WP-8657-2019 [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."
18. The Appellate Authority while considering the application filed by the petitioners has failed to consider the settled legal proposition as well as the mandatory provisions of Section 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act of 1976 read with Section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999. There is no document in the entire records to demonstrate that after issuance of notice under Section 10(5) of the Act of 1976 and the petitioners' father failed to surrender the land in question voluntarily, proceedings under Section 10(6) of the Act were initiated.
19. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has claimed that the possession of the land was never taken from them and they are still enjoying the possession. There is no material placed before this Court to show initiation of any proceedings declaring the petitioners to be encroachers upon the land after the possession of the land was taken by the State Authorities way back in the year 1990 as per their own contentions.
20. Under these circumstances, the impugned order is unsustainable and it is hereby quashed. As there is no return filed by the Authorities, this Court deems it appropriate to remand the matter back to the Authorities for reconsideration of claim of petitioners. The Authorities are directed to give audience to the petitioners and to consider all the relevant documents which Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 30-10-2025 10:43:35 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53565 13 WP-8657-2019 the petitioners could place before them in support of their claim. The Authorities are expected to consider the guidelines framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation (supra).
21. The entire excise be completed within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
22. With aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed of. No order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE Shbhnkr Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 30-10-2025 10:43:35