Smt. Chameli Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief:-

In short the facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner and in possession of the disputed land. The petitioner is the only successor and legal heir of her father Babau Yadav. The disputed land was originally recorded in the name of Babau Yadav, who was in possession of the said land. Babau Yadav was the owner of disputed land. The Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short Act of 1976) initiated ceiling proceeding Case No.694/A-90/B-9/76-77 against Babau Yadav in respect of his agricultural lands situated at Khasra No.17/5 area 1.283 hectares and Khasra No.57/4 area 0.170 hectares, Settlement No.164, Patwari Circle No.24/2, village Polipathar, Tahsil and District Jabalpur and asked the petitioner to submit the objection. Objection submitted by Babau Yadav that since the lands are agricultural lands, it cannot be declared as surplus. However, on 10.12.1979 (Annexure P/1), an area of land i.e. 12218.81 sq.mt. was declared as surplus and as per the provisions of Section 10(3) of the Act of 1976 the notification was issued and published in the Gazette. It is submitted that no notice under Section 10(5) of the Act of 1976 was issued to Babau Yadav or to the petitioner or her mother.

It is submitted that against the order declaring the land in question as surplus and vesting of lands in the Government under Section10(3) of the Act of 1976, petitioner’s father Babau Yadav filed an appeal under Section 33 of the Act of 1976 before the respondent No.2- Commissioner, Jabalpur. In the meanwhile, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (For short 'Repeal Act') came into force in the State of M.P.. Therefore, respondent No.2-Commissioner, Jabalpur has passed the an order dated 23.07.2000 (Annexure P/2) observing that by operation of the Repeal Act, the entire proceedings stood abated. Thereafter, the father of the petitioner Babau Yadav filed an application for recording his name, but the respondent No. 4 has passed the order dated 14.06.2001 (Annexure P/3) holding that since alike matters are pending adjudication before the High Court, therefore, till the decision in the said matters is arrived, no order in respect of recording of the name can be passed and dismissed the application.

It is averred in the petition that petitioner and her mother Summari Bai had filed an application Annexure P-4 dated 16.03.2004 before the respondent No.3, but no order was passed on the said application nor the name of the State Government has been deleted from the revenue records. On 21.05.2011, mother of the petitioner Summari Bai died and consequently, now the petitioner is the sole successor and legal representative of original owner Babau Yadav.

It is averred in the petition that the lands of the petitioner are agricultural land and hence they are not covered under provisions of the Act of 1976. It is submitted that the competent authority has not recorded any evidence for deciding the case or for declaration of vacant lands and allotment of units as per the meaning of family. The competent authority has relied only on the report of Revenue Inspector even though the Revenue Inspector has not been examined. Thus, the finding of the competent authority is not based on any material and evidence and as such it is arbitrary. Hence, this petition.

The respondents have filed return contending that as per the revenue records available, the original land owner late Babau Yadav was proceeded as per the provisions of the Act of 1976 and the said proceedings were concluded somewhere in the year 1985 and the possession of the land was taken over and accordingly the revenue record was corrected recording the name of the State Government, which is clear from Khasra entries-Annexure R/1. It is submitted that the proceedings under the Act of 1976 were initiated against the original land owner Babau Yadav and the final order came to be passed in the year 1985, however, as per pleadings of the petitioner, the original land owner took no steps to challenge the said proceedings or to file any objections before the competent authority and it was only when the Repeal Act came in force on 27.03.2000, application dated 01.06.2001 (Annexure-P/3) was filed seeking restoration of the name, which came to be rejected vide order dated 14.06.2021. It is submitted that from 1985 to 2001, no steps were taken by the original land owner to question the ceiling proceedings, which clearly indicates that the proceedings were conducted in accordance with law. Therefore, the fact remains that since at the time of enforcement of the Repeal Act no proceedings in respect of the land in question were pending therefore, filing of application by the father of the petitioner in the year 2001 was of no consequence.

It is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Assam vs. Bhaskar Jyoti Sharma reported in (2015) 5 SCC 321 has been pleased to hold that the proceedings of the Act, 1976 concluded 10 to 15 years back cannot be permitted to be re-agitated under the garb that the land owners are still in possession of the lands in question or can be permitted to agitate the issue of alleged fault in the proceedings of taking over of the possession.

It is submitted that the status of the petitioner over the said land is at the most of an encroacher and therefore, no right accrues in favour of the petitioner on the said count. Therefore, the petitioner cannot now be permitted to call upon this Court to adjudicate upon the disputed question of fact as to whether proceedings under Section 10(5) of the Act of 1976 was undertaken in accordance with law or not because the record of the case has been lost and not traceable.

It is submitted that there is always a presumption in respect of following the procedure as contemplated in the law, therefore, since the name of the State is reflected in the revenue record since 1985, therefore, presumption can be drawn in favour of the State that the proceedings undertaken for taking over the possession of the land in question are in accordance with law.

It is submitted that the respondents have made sincere efforts to trace out the record, but the records are not traceable. An FIR vide Crime No. 31/2022 dated 09.12.2022 in respect of missing of the said records has also been lodge vide Annexure R/2 in the concerned police station. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the definition of Section 2(q) of the Act of 1976 of the 'vacant land', the land of the petitioner being agricultural land is not falling with the ambit of the Act of 1976. It is further submitted that as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of M/s A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation vs. the Tahsildar and others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 447, it is on the State to prove that at the relevant point of time when the ceiling proceedings have been concluded, the possession was taken over. It is submitted that no document to that effect under Section 10(5) or Section 10(6) of the Act of 1976 has been filed alongwith the return. The State has lost the record for which FIR has been filed as Annexure R/2, therefore, by no means it can be assumed that the possession of the surplus land was taken over at the relevant point of time. Therefore, by application of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (For short 'Repeal Act'), all proceedings of the Ceiling Act stood abated and therefore, the land in question be declared as not affected by the ceiling. It is further submitted that vide order dated 10.12.1979 (Annexure P/1) passed in Revenue Case No. 694/A-90(B-9) 76-77 draft statement has been directed to be issued after deciding the objection of the petitioner. The said order was challenged under Section 33 of the Act of 1976 by filing an appeal, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 27.03.2000 (Annexure P/2) on the ground that as by application of Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, all proceedings pending relating to any order made or purported to be made under the Principal Act stood abated provided that this section shall not apply to the proceedings relating to Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Principal Act so far as such proceedings are relatable of the land, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorized in this behalf or by the competent authority, shall abate.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the possession of the land has never been taken over as no document to substantiate possession has been filed alongwith the return. It is submitted that the entries, which have been recorded in the revenue record in the year 1985-86 to the effect that the land is affected by ceiling itself does not reflect that the possession has been taken over. The physical possession is still with the petitioner. It is submitted that as soon as the order dated 27.03.2000 has been passed, the petitioner applied to the competent authority to record his name in the revenue record, which was disposed of by holding that the records of the ceiling matters have been submitted in the pending PIL. Thereafter an application under Section 4 of the Repeal Act has been filed on 16.03.2004, which is still pending. However, no orders have been passed on the pending application.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that after the proceeding of Section 10(3) of the Act of 1976 the possession has been taken over and the land has already been recorded in the revenue record at the relevant point of time in the year 1985-86. The petitioner has never challenged those proceedings and as the petitioner submits that the appeal against the order dated 10.02.1979 was pending, which was decided by order dated 27.03.2000 (Annexure P/2), therefore, during pendency of that appeal, the ceiling matter was concluded by issuance of notice of Sections 10(3), 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act of 1976, however, the said records are not available, traceable and lost, for which the State has lodged an FIR with the concerned police station, but it is submitted that the revenue entries are conclusive proof that it has been recorded after conclusion of proceedings of the Act of 1976. It is submitted that under Section 117 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, these entries are presumed to be true unless contrary is proved. The petitioner could not file any document to substantiate that the possession has not been taken over at the relevant point of time and the entries in the name of the 'State' have not been recorded in the revenue record. It is further submitted that as the revenue entries were made way back in the year 1985-86, therefore, the petition challenging the very proceedings of the ceiling of 1976 by filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is hopelessly time barred and suffers from laches. The order against the draft statement was also passed on 27.03.2000 and the application under Section 4 of the Repeal Act was filed in the year 2004, but the petitioner has waited till 2013 to file the present petition, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed as it suffers from delay and laches.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It is evident from the revenue entries-Annexure R/1 that the land has been recorded as surplus land under the Act of 1976 and the name of the State is also recorded. It is the case of the petitioner that such recording of the entries of the State is unilateral. The petitioner was never served with the notice of Section 10(5) of the Act of 1976 to take possession or forcible possession under Section 10(6) of the Act of 1976, therefore, any such unilateral proceeding does not create any right in favour of the State. Now the fact remains that such entries had been recorded in the revenue record in the year 1985-86. The petitioner had never challenged such entries. The petitioner only challenged the order of issuance of draft statement that too has been shown to be filed in the year 1997 after 12-13 years of recording of the entries; that goes to show that the petitioner was very much aware of the fact that the ceiling proceedings were pending and the land was recorded as surplus land and affected by the ceiling act; that goes to show that the petitioner for the purpose of taking benefit of the Repeal Act has filed the appeal memo, which is not connecting with the order dated 27.03.2000 (Annexure P/2). The order dated 27.03.2000 (Annexure P/2) does not disclose that on which proceeding such order has been passed. The petitioner submits that this order came to be passed in the appeal, however, the appeal memo filed alongwith the Document No. 6760/2026 does not contain any endorsement that on which date it has been filed. It is only a photocopy of the memo of appeal. The said memo of appeal contains the relief of quashment of the order dated 20.05.1980. The Annexure P/1 has been passed on 10.12.1979. The order dated 27.03.2000 (Annexure P/2) has been passed holding that the proceedings under Section 4 of the Repeal Act are abated. Therefore, no connection could be traced between the orders and the appeal filed by the petitioner. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the proceedings of 1976 were finally concluded in the year 1985-86 and recorded in the revenue record. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present petition in the year 2013 i.e. after a lapse of 26-27 years. The question in regard to land being agricultural land cannot be decided after lapse of 26 -27 years when the land has already been recorded as affected by ceiling. The petitioner could not substantiate by any document that the land in question is in possession of the petitioner. No interference can be drawn for not filing the record of the ceiling by the State when the documents of entries in the revenue records are there. The revenue records are rebuttable but for that no document has been filed by the petitioner to rebut the same. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, no case is made to interfere in the matter.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board and others v. T.T. Murali Babu (2014) 4 SCC 108 has held as under:

In view of the above enunciation of law and the discussion made hereinabove, the petition is dismissed.