Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Smt. Anees Fatima on 4 January, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WA-1055-2017
(THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs SMT. ANEES FATIMA)
2
Jabalpur, Dated : 04-01-2018
Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, Deputy Advocate General for the
appellants/State.
Shri Arjun Bajpai, Advocate for the respondents.
sh I.A.No.15458/2017 - application for condonation of delay.
e For the reasons stated in the application, we are satisfied that the ad appellants have disclosed sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The delay is condoned.
I.A. stands allowed and disposed of.
Pr a hy Writ Appeal No.1055/2017:
ad M The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single Bench on 15.05.2017 in W.P. No.7289/2009 (Smt. of Anees Fatima and others v. State of M.P. and others) whereby it was rt held that the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and ou Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short "the Act") stands abated as the possession has not been taken following the procedure prescribed C under the Act after commencement of Urban Land (Ceiling and h Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (for short "the Repeal Act"). ig The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the H appellants is that there was delay by the land owner to challenge the aforesaid proceedings and therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Bench is not sustainable.
We do not find any merit in the said argument. The deprivation of the property has to be in accordance with law. If the procedure prescribed under the Act has not been complied with, the land owner cannot be deemed to have been deprived of the land vested in him. Consequently, the plea of delay is not sustainable and has been rightly declined by the learned Single Bench.
In fact, this Division Bench in W.A. No.558/2016 (State of M.P. and others vs. Rajubhai and others) decided on 06.07.2017 has examined the issue of vesting of land and held that unless a valid notice to deliver possession is given in terms of the provisions of Sub- sections (5) and (6) of Section 10 of the Act, there is no vesting of the land with the State.
In view of the aforesaid judgment and the reasons recorded by the learned Single Bench, we do not find any merit in the present appeal.
Dismissed.
e sh
(HEMANT GUPTA) (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
ad
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Pr
a
hy
S/
ad
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
2.5.4.20=e0af17b0c265631809b6ba87607ad2292faaa62df05400 M 96e4c72619bbaf6a0f, 2.5.4.45=0321009B62B02412F4FE2FD500C9CFB93A127AAD25E 5DCCD2036A50070FB7C12D30DF4, cn=SACHIN CHAUDHARY Date: 2018.01.05 14:17:23 +05'30' of rt ou C h ig H