Yakub S/O Kasam Nayta (Dead) Thr. ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3272 MP

                                 - : 1 :-



     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE
      (SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA)

                 Review Petition No. 383/2021
 (Yakub S/o Kasam Nayta (dead) and others V/s. The State of M.P.)

Date: 14.07.2021:
     Shri Kunji Lal Hardia, learned counsel for the petitioner.
       Shri Sanjay Kumar Karanjawala, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
                               *************

Heard on the question of admission as well as on I.A. No.3206/2021 which is an application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act.

The petitioner/appellant/ plaintiff filed this present review petition seeking review of judgment dated 11.07.2019 passed in First Appeal No.283/2020 whereby the First Appeal has been dismissed upholding the Judgment dated 10.02.2020 .

The facts of the case in short are as under:-

1. Yakub and six others being the legal heirs of late Kasam filed a civil suit 95-A/90 seeking declaration that the proceeding of Ceiling Case No.452-B/121-6/76-77 be declared void and the defendants be restrained to interfere into their peaceful possession of the suit land . In civil suit apart from State Government and competent authority under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 ( in short " the ULC Act") other legal heirs of late Kasam were impleaded as defendant no.2 to 12. Vide judgment dated 10.02.2020 the learned Addl. District Judge, Indore dismissed the suit as not maintainable by virtue of Section 42 of " the ULC Act" and also on the ground that land had already been vested in the State Government in the year 1982 and the possession had also be taken in the year 1982. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order all the plaintiffs filed the First Appeal no.283/2020 before High Court . During pendency

- : 2 :-

of appeal, Yakub died and his four legal heirs were brought on record. Likewise defendant no.3 also died and his five legal heirs were brought on record. The first appeal came up for hearing and vide judgment dated 11.07.2019 the same was dismissed.

2. Now the appellants have filed the review petition inter alia on the ground " the ULC Act" had been repealed by the Central Government w.e.f. 22.03.1999 and thereafter, the M.P. State Government had also repealed it w.e.f. 01.07.2020 hence, the provision of section 42 of " the ULC Act" would not apply and the suit was maintainable. It is also pleaded that legal heirs of the appellant No....were not brought on record hence the decree is void.

Learned Government Advocate submits that in this review petition, there is no grounds to interfere and barred by limitation hence this appeal is liable to be dismissed.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. This review petition is not tenable on following reasons : (I) In the present case the defendant no.3 to 12 had already challenging the proceedings of ceiling case Ceiling Case No.452- B/121-6/76-77 vide civil suit no.863/A/1992 which was decreed vide judgment dated 12.08.1993 but in the first appeal filed by the government vide judgment dated 18.03.1994 the judgment and decree has been set aside. The finding has been recorded that the possession of the suit land had been taken by the State Government on 13.04.1980.

(ii) So far as the effect of repeal of " the ULC Act"is concerned, the same was repealed by Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. Section 3 of the aforesaid Act saved the possession of vacant land which has been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorities by State Govt. or by

- : 3 :-

competent authority therefore, wasting of any vacant land under sub- section 3 of the Section 10 of " the ULC Act" and the possession of land have been saved by Repealed Act,1999.

(iii) In the State of M.P. " the ULC Act" was repealed w.e.f. 17.02.2000 and the civil suit was dismissed on 10.02.2000 therefore at that time " the ULC Act" was very much enforced in the State of M.P. and hence the civil suit was pending and same was rightly dismissed by virtue of the applicability of Section 42 of " the ULC Act". The first appeal was in continuance of the suit therefore, the effect of repealed act would not apply.

(iv) the defendants 3 to 12 have not been impleaded as respondents in this review petition.

Hence, no case of review is made out.

(v) This review petition is barred by 242 days and there are as many as 9 appellants including legal representatives of Late Yakub but only one appellant has filed an affidavit in support of application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act that he was not aware about the judgment passed by this Court. He alone has filed the vakalatnama in support of the review petition. Therefore, there is no pleading or affidavit of other plaintiffs/appellants to the effect that they had no knowledge about the judgment passed in the first appeal. They all have been arrayed as review petitioners in this review petition but only petitioner no.1.1. has filed the vakalatnama.

The delay of 242 days has not been explained in this review petition properly, therefore, delay is not liable to be condoned.

Accordingly, the application filed under section 5 of limitation Act is dismissed accordingly review petition is also dismissed.

                                                                                           (VIVEK RUSIA)
                                                                                               JUDGE
      Ajit
AJIT        Digitally signed by AJIT KAMALASANAN

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh,

KAMALASAN 2.5.4.20=156c9cedca1b74d671db9f220a5e3ed6cba241effa d892107d95ef0a1afc55b4, pseudonym=CFDFD9C36711CA738F527A5D61A1EE901C09 EF29, serialNumber=7F0BEE2D78BD57DA058F3247441C87E7E08

AN 17FB61F5E2ABCAEE63CAAA7B3B9FF, cn=AJIT KAMALASANAN Date: 2021.07.16 13:47:29 +05'30'