Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 – s.11(3) and s.11(4) – Surplus land under the Act – Predecessorin-interest of appellant was bhumiswami of agricultural dry land – He was stated to be holding land in excess of the prescribed ceiling limit – Such excess land declared to be surplus land, whereafter, respondents initiated proceedings for taking over possession and eviction u/s.248 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code – Appellant filed suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction contending that the land recovery proceedings were illegal since he was actually left with land within the prescribed ceiling limit since a part of the land had been decreed in favour of his motherin-law, ‘J’, after she filed a civil suit against him – Suit of appellant dismissed by trial court – First Appellate Court however held that the competent authority had failed to comply with the statutory provisions u/s.11(3) and s.11(4) and restrained the respondents from interfering with possession of such land – High Court set aside the judgment of Appellate Court – On appeal, held: Right to property is still a constitutional right under Art.300A of the Constitution though not a fundamental right – Deprivation of the right can only be in accordance with the procedure established by law – On facts, once a disclosure was made (that ‘J’ had filed a suit against appellant), the matter had to be dealt with under sub-section (4) of s.11 and in view of the pending suit proceedings between appellant and ‘J’, the proviso to sub-section (4) of s.11 came into play which required the respondent authorities to await the decision of the court – However, the very scheme of the Act was breached by the respondents in not complying with the statutory provisions – Even notice was not issued to ‘J’ – She could have clarified the position further – The effect of the decree in favour of ‘J’ is that the appellant loses the right to hold that land and his total land holding comes within the ceiling limit – If there is no surplus land there can be no question of any proceedings for takeover of the surplus land under the Act – Judgment of first Appellate Court accordingly restored – Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 – s.248.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. The factual matrix of the instant case is to be examined in the context of the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960. The preparation of the statement of land held in excess of ceiling limit under Section
11 of the said Act has to be on the basis of information given in the return under Section 9 of the said Act, or the information obtained by the competent authority under Section 10 of the said Act after making an enquiry. In terms of Section 11(3), the draft statement is to be published and served on the holder, the creditor and “all other persons interested in the land to which it relates.” Once a disclosure is there that ‘J’ had filed a suit, there has to be mandatorily a notice to her as otherwise any decision would be behind her back and would, thus, violate the principles of natural justice. [Para 22][141-B-D]
2. There is little ambiguity about the aforesaid position as in Section 11(4) it has been stated that in case the competent authority finds that any question has arisen regarding the title of a particular holder, which has not been determined by the competent court, the competent authority shall proceed to enquire summarily into merits of such question and pass such orders as it thinks fit. Thus, the power is vested with the competent authority to determine such conflict of the land holding. This is, however, subject to a proviso. The proviso clearly stipulates that if such a question is already pending for decision before the competent court, the competent authority shall await the decision of the court. [Para 23][141-D-F]
3. The embargo came there and then as once the disclosure was made the proceedings should have been kept in abeyance to await the decision in those proceedings. The occasion to pass orders under sub-section (5) and sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the said Act did not arise in the present case in view of the disclosure of J’s suit. Further proceedings should have been kept in abeyance to await the verdict in the suit as per proviso to subsection (4) and notice should have been issued to ‘J’. All this has been observed to be in breach by the respondents. Thus, the findings of the appellate court in constructions of these provisions reflects the correct position of law in the given facts of the case. [Para 24][141-F-H]
4. The legal position has to be appreciated in the factual context. Thus, though there may be a process provided for redressal under the scheme of the Act, it is this very scheme of the Act which has been breached by the respondents in not complying with the statutory provisions. It can be nobody’s say that ‘J’ cannot file a title suit against the appellant. That suit being maintainable and pending, and the factum of that suit being disclosed in the return, the provisions of Section 11 had to be strictly complied with. This is so as the right to property is still a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India though not a fundamental right. The deprivation of the right can only be in accordance with the procedure established by law. The law in this case is the said Act. Thus, the provisions of the said Act had to be complied with to deprive a person of the land being surplus. [Para 28][142-F-H; 143-A-D]
5. The provisions of the said Act are very clear as to what has to be done at each stage. Once a disclosure was made, the matter had to be dealt with under sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the said Act and in view of the pending suit proceedings between the appellant and ‘J’, the proviso came into play which required the respondent authorities to await the decision of the court. Subsection 5 and thereafter sub-section 6 would kick in only after the mandate of subsection 4 was fulfilled. In the present case it was not so. Even notice was not issued to ‘J’. She could have clarified the position further. The effect of the decree in favour of ‘J’ is that the appellant loses the right to hold that land and his total land holding comes within the ceiling limit. If there is no surplus land there can be no question of any proceedings for take over of the surplus land under the said Act. Thus, the impugned order of the High Court is liable to be set aside and the order of the first appellate court is restored. [Paras 29, 30][143-B-E]
Competent Authority, Tarana District, Ujjain (M.P.) v. Vijay Gupta & Ors., (1991) Supp 2 SCC 631 and State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Dungaji (Dead)
Represented by Legal Representatives & Anr., (2019) 7 SCC 465 : [2019] 9 SCR 979 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.