State of M.P. vs Ghisilal

HELD: 1.1 The land in question is in the Urban Agglomeration and covered by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. As such, original owner late PS had filed declaration under the provisions of the ULC Act and after conducting necessary inquiry, final orders were passed by the competent authority declaring 16000.32 square meters of land as surplus land. It is also clear from the material placed on record that consequent to final orders passed by the competent authority, notifications under Section 10(1) and 10(3) of the ULC Act were issued. Although, it is the case of the respondent - plaintiff that possession was taken without issuing notice, as such it cannot be considered as valid taking over of possession, but it is evident from the copy of the panchnama, the respondent, who claims to be the legal heir of late PS, is also a signatory as a witness to the same. Though the respondent - plaintiff was a witness to the panchnama for taking over possession, a belated attempt was made by filing the present suit by the respondent without even questioning the orders passed by the competent authority under the Act, declaring the land in question as a surplus land. The trial court as well as appellate court fell in error in recording a finding that possession was not taken, inspite of taking possession by conducting panchnama for which respondent is a signatory. In view of the stand of the appellant, of taking over possession of the land by conducting panchnama for which respondent is a signatory, it is difficult to believe the stand of the respondent that possession was not taken. In view of the stand of the respondent that possession is with the respondent, this Court called for a report from the District Judge. Pursuant to the same, report dated 14.04.2021 was sent by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh to this Court. It is evident from such report that the appellant has taken possession of the land and the same was allotted to the Bhopal Development Authority and the same was utilised for construction of about

400 houses for needy slum dwellers by spending huge amount. Thus, it is clear that possession of the land was not only taken but same is utilised for a public purpose. [Para 13][1184-F-G; 1085-A-F]

1.2 The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is a self-contained Code. Various provisions of the Act make it clear that if any orders are passed by the competent authority, there is provision for appeal, revision before the designated appellate and revisional authorities. In view of such remedies available for aggrieved parties, the jurisdiction of the civil courts to try suit relating to land which is subject-matter of ceiling proceedings, stands excluded by implication. Civil court cannot declare, orders passed by the authorities under the ULC Act, as illegal or non est. More so, when such orders have become final, no declaration could have been granted by the civil court. [Para 14][1185-F-H; 1186-A]

1.3 It is clear from the orders passed by the competent authorities, that the original declarant was holding excess land to the extent of 16000.32 square meters. When the orders passed by the competent authority and consequential notifications issued under Section 10(1) and 10(3) of the ULC Act have become final, it was not open for the respondent to file a suit seeking declaration, as prayed for. As the jurisdiction of the civil courts is barred by necessary implication, trial court fell in error in entertaining the suit, as filed by the respondent and even the first appellate court and second appellate court have not considered the various grounds raised by the appellant in proper perspective. [Para 15][1186-B-D]

1.4 The judgment and decree in Civil Suit as confirmed by the first appellate Court and the High Court, is set aside. Consequently, the suit filed by the respondent is dismissed. [Para 17][1186-F-G]

Competent Authority, Calcutta, under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and another v. David Mantosh and others (2020) 12 SCC 542:[2019] 4 SCR

331 – relied on.

State of Assam v. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma and others (2015)

5 SCC 321 : [2014] 14 SCR 1451; Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and others (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1; Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others (2020) 2 SCC 569; Mangalsen v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2014) 15 SCC 332; Gaiv Dinshaw Irani and others v. Tehmtan Irani and others (2014) 8 SCC 294 : [2014] 5 SCR 646; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Hari Ram (2013) 4 SCC 280 : [2013]

2 SCR 301 – referred to.