S.S. Shanti Kumar and Others vs State of M.P. and Others

This application has been for recalling an order-dated 28.1.2002, passed by a Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2261/1998 (Smt. Vijaya Rani and others Vs. State of MP and others). The dispute which was canvassed by the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2261/1998 pertained to declaring certain land held by the petitioners as surplus land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ''Act'') and disposal of the writ petition by a Bench of this Court vide order-dated 28.1.2002.

We have gone through the application filed by the applicants for recall and we find that after giving details of the proceedings held and the rights of the parties with regard to the land in question, the submission made in paragraph 36 is that this Court while deciding Writ Petition No. 6186/2001, has remanded the matter back to the competent authority under the statute to determine the question of possession and decide the matter afresh.

It is stated in this application that as no notice u/s 10(1), 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act was issued, the question of possession by the State Government does not arise and, therefore, the order be recalled.

Shri K.S. Wadhwa, learned Additional Advocate General, points out that the question as to whether the notice u/s 10(1), 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act was actually issued; to whom it was served is also a question of fact and because the order in question which is sought to be recalled is only an order of remand, no case is made out for recall.

Having considered the averments made in the application filed by the applicants and on taking note of the objection raised by Shri K.S. Wadhwa, we see no reason to recall or review the order. This Court has gone into the details of the matter and after taking note of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, came to the conclusion that the question of possession of the land being taken over by the State Government and the implication of the same with regard to the Repeal Act is a disputed question of fact and, therefore, placing reliance on certain judgments of the Supreme Court, remanded the matter back to the competent authority to inquire into the question of possession and take a decision.

Now, applicants want recall of this order only on the ground that statutory compliance of issuing notice under sections 10(1), 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act, having not been made, the order be recalled.

The very fact as to whether the notice was issued in accordance to the requirements of section 10(1), particularly under sections 10(1) and 10(5); to whom it was issued, to whom it was served; whether it was served properly or not, is a question of fact which is to be inquired into and as the order is only an order of remand, where the matter can be more appropriately inquire into by the competent authority, leaving the question of issuance of notice under sections 10(1), 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act open to be decided by the competent authority, we see no reason to review of recall the order passed.

The grounds raised in this application are not such so as to suggest that there is an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review/recall of the order passed. Accordingly, the application for review/recall is dismissed with liberty to the applicants to raise the grounds as are canvassed in this application before the competent authority to whom the matter has been remanded.