Rampyari vs State of M.P. and Others

T.S. Doabia, J.

The only point which has been urged in this writ petition is that for the purpose of determining the vacant land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the competent authority is supposed to see the nature of the land as it was on the appointed date. The fact that a master - plan was prepared for the urban regulations would not govern the nature of the land. As above the only contention which is being raised, it is not necessary to note any other fact.

The law in this regard has since been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Atia Mohanmadi Begum v. State of U. P. (1993) 3 SCC 546.

The Above decision was followed by Hon''ble Mr. Justice A. K. Mathur in M. P. No. 148./ 1988. Later on, in writ petition No. 948 of 1990, (Preetamsingh and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others) decided on 26.8.1994, the observations made by this Court with regard to this aspect of the matter are as under :

In the view of the matter, the orders passed by the respondents 2 and 3 are quashed. The matter is remitted back to the competent authority to decide the same afresh in accordance with law. The competent authority would decide the matter within three months from the date of the receipt of this order.''

In view of the above, this petition is allowed. The competent authority shall determine the vacant land afresh after taking note of the decision of the Supreme Court and also the two decision referred to above.

The petitioner would appear before the competent authority on 7.8.96. Secutity, if deposited be fefunded to the petitioner.