Chiranji Lal Kumhar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 May, 2023
But the Supreme Court in the case of Hariram (supra) has observed as
under:-
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.70 seconds)Smt. Mulla Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 November, 2023
17. The Supreme Court recently in a case of State of U.P. & Anr. Vs.
Ehsan & Anr. (Civil Appeal No.5721 of 2023) dealing with the same
issue relying upon the decision of Hariram (supra) has observed as
under :-
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Kishan Lal on 4 December, 2024
2. The said order passed by the Division Bench has been sought
to be reviewed on the ground that the judgment on the basis of which
the Division Bench had passed its order i.e. State of Uttar Pradesh Vs.
Hariram reported in 2013 (4) SCC 280 has been distinguished by the
Apex Court in another judgment rendered in the case of State of Assam
Vs. Bhaskar Jyoti Sharma reported in 2015 (5) SCC 321, therefore,
the findings arrived at by the Division Bench were perverse and
therefore, the order needs to be reviewed and recalled and as such, the
entire ground for review is based upon the subsequent law laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court allegedly not taken into consideration.
Mithila vs State Of M.P. on 10 January, 2025
3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has specifically
argued before this Court that the actual physical possession had never been
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10-01-2025
05:51:29 PM
3
taken from the petitioners even the symbolic possession referred to in the
counter affidavit cannot be termed as a possession taken in accordance with
law as there is no documentary evidence to demonstrate that for taking
possession any notice were issued and received by the tenure holder. The
possession receipt filed by the respondent/State is only paper formality
which is clearly evident from bare perusal of possession receipt, as the same
does not contain any signature of land owner or any independent witness,
thus, it can be safely said that the State Authority has not taken the actual
and physical possession till date. Earlier, the father of petitioner was in
possession and after the death of father, the petitioners who are legal
representatives are still in possession and are cultivating the crops on the
said land. The father of the petitioner had taken the electricity connection
and the tube well constructed over Khasra No.263 and 136 and are still in
existence and the petitioner is taking the water for crop from the electric
water pump. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs.
Hariram reported in (2013) 4 SCC 280, the proceedings initiated against
the petitioner under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)
Act, 1976 are illegal and should be treated to be abated in the wake of
repeal of the Act of 1976 in the year 1999.
Dhanpal vs State Of M.P. on 10 January, 2025
11. The Supreme Court in case of (State of U.P. Vs. Hariram)
reported in (2013) 4 SCC 280 has already laid down a law that
before taking possession notice under Section 10(5) and under
Section 10(6) of Act 1976 is a mandatory requirement and if that is
not followed and possession has shown to have been taken the said
procedure is defective and illegal and taking possession cannot be
said to be proper. The Supreme Court in 31, 34, 35, 36 , 37 to 43 has
observed as under :-
Nahar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 June, 2025
(8) Learned counsel has specifically argued that the actual physical
possession was never taken from the petitioners, even no symbolic
possession has taken as there is no documentary evidence to demonstrate
that for taking possession any notice was issued and received by the tenure
holders and the possession receipt filed by the respondent/State appears to
be a paper formality as from the said receipt it would be evident that it does
not contain any signature of the land owners or any independent witnesses
and therein it had only been mentioned that since the petitioner did not
appear at the time of taking over of the possession, ex parte possession was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR
Signing time: 03-07-2025
17:19:04
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13140
5 WP-3704-2020
taken over which is a cyclostyle format having fill in the blanks, thus, it can
safely be said that the actual physical possession was never taken from the
petitioners and since the petitioners are still tilling or cultivating the crops
on the said land the entries made in the khasra for the year 2019-2020 in
the name of state govenrment is perse illegal. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Hariram reported in (2013) 4 SCC 280 ,
the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of Urban
Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 are illegal and should be treated to
be abated in the wake of repeal of the Act of 1976 in the year 1999 with
effect from February, 2000.
Anil Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 July, 2025
15. 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:-
Suresh Kumar Kachhi [Patel] vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 July, 2025
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:-
Jugal Kishore Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 July, 2025
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:-
Shyamsunder vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 August, 2024
20. So far as the objection raised by the State as regards posession by
drawing paper panchnama is concernerd, the same is an empty
formality as the Apex Court in the case of Hari Ram (supra) in the
context of Act, has clearly held that de facto possession is required to be
taken by the State and not de jure. However, in the present case, State
-17-
has never taken physical possession of the plots in question and
appellants are in possession of the said plots since they purchased the
aforesaid plots and therefore with effect from 07.02.2000 when the
Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeat Act,1999 was adopted by the
State of M.P. They retained ownership and possession of the said plots
and therefore, respondents were not justified in issuing notices for
regularization of title of plots in the name of appellants. Despite that
when the appellants deposited the amount as demanded, respondents on
the one hand kept mum for years together and did not act upon the
several representations submitted by the appellants in various Samadhan
Shivirs on in 2004, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010 leading to filing of petition
before this Court through which directions were issued for expeditious
disposal of representations submitted by the appellants within stipulated
time. Though representations were adverted too by the respondents, but
against the interest of appellants in the year 2012. The appellants kept
waiting for years together and in the end they have got an order against
them.