Madhya Pradesh High Court
Brajendra Kesarwani vs Additional Collector Jabalpur Cum ... on 20 June, 2025
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26605
1 WP-14152-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
WRIT PETITION No. 14152 of 2017
BRAJENDRA KESARWANI
Versus
ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR JABALPUR CUM COMPETENT
AUTHORITY UNDER URBAN LAND (CEILING AND
REGULATION) ACT
Appearance:
Shri S.K. Rawat - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Hitendra Singh - Government Advocate for the State.
Shri Ram Suphal Verma - Advocate for the Intervener.
Reserved on : 07.04.2025
Delivered on : 20.06.2025
..............................................................................................................................................
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India challenging order 29.11.2019 contained in
Annexure-P/8 passed in revenue Case No.0093/B-121/2017-18.
2. Brief facts of the case are that case under Urban Land (Ceiling
and Regulation) Act, 1976 was registered at Case No.561/A-19(B-
9)/1979-80. Original owner of land in question was one Yogendra
Prasad S/o Chhote Lal who had filed his statement regarding surplus
land under section 6 of Act of 1976. Draft statement was issued on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26605
2 WP-14152-2017
04.02.1984 and same was served upon one Sundarlal on 04.04.1984. No
objections were filed in respect of draft statement and final statement
was issued under Section 9. Said final statement was served on
07.07.1984, thereafter, publication in Gazette of Madhya Pradesh was
made on 01.03.1985. Publication of Gazette notification under Section
10(3) was made on 04.04.1986. Notice under Section 10(5) was issued
on 19.07.1989 which is served on 26.07.1989. Case was forwarded for
taking possession to Tehsildar which was registered as Case No.120-B-
121/88-89. Land was declared surplus and possession was taken on
20.10.1989. An application was filed by one Brajendra Keswarani and
others before Additional Collector, Jabalpur. Application was registered
as Case No.10/B-121/14-15. Said application was filed in light of order
passed by High Court date 18.12.2014. Case was remanded back issuing
direction to consider the case of petitioner afresh in light of various
judgments quoted in the order. On basis of said direction, Additional
Collector took up the matter for hearing. Upper Collector dismissed the
case as he found that case was not within the ambit of Section 3(1)(a) of
the ULCRRA, 1999 and application was dismissed vide order dated
20.03.2015. Said order was challenged in WP No.21765/2015. Said writ
petition was disposed of vide order dated 30.08.2017 by Division Bench.
Impugned order was quashed and matter was remanded back to
Additional Collector for fresh decision in accordance with law. As per
said direction, matter was again taken up by Collector, Jabalpur.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26605
3 WP-14152-2017
Application was dismissed with finding that land has been vested in
State Government and applicants are not eligible to get the benefit of
Section 4 of the ULCRRA, 1999. Said order is under challenge before
this Court in this petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that
petitioner is successor/holder/owner of land situated at village
Chowkital, Khasra No.2, Patwari Hlka No.28 measuring 03.19 hectare
and Khasra No.5/2 measuring 1.214 hectare. Two revenue cases were
registered under ULCRA, 1976 i.e. Case No.561/A-90(b-9)/79-80 and
Case No.57/A-90(b-9)/82-83. Aforesaid land were purchased by
petitioner by registered sale deed dated 11.10.1995 and 21.10.1988 from
Babban Sonkar and Yogendra Prasad. It is submitted that land in
question does not come within definition of Urban Agglomeration under
Section 2(N) of ULCRA, 1976. No notification was issued under
Section 2(N) of the Act, 1976, therefore, land was not vacant land and
Act was not applicable in case of petitioner. Additional Collector in its
order dated 20.03.2015 has admitted that no notification has been issued
and there is non-compliance of provision of Section 10 of ULCRA,
1976. On this ground, prayer is made to set aside impugned order passed
by Collector dated 29.11.2019 and abate ceiling proceeding in question
and direct Revenue Authority to mutate the name of petitioner in
revenue records.
4. Learned Government Advocate appearing for State opposed the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26605
4 WP-14152-2017
petition and submitted that averment made by petitioner that there was
no notification under Section 2 (N) of the Act of 1976 is incorrect. It is
submitted that petitioner has accepted the compensation amount.
Petition is filed an after thought, therefore, prayer is made for dismissal
of writ petition.
5. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the original
records.
6. On going through the record, it is found that possession of land
was taken and case under ULCRA, 1976 was concluded and
compensation has also been decided by competent authority of an
amount of Rs.2222/-. Proceeding under Sections 11-14 was done on
10.05.1992. Aforesaid fact shows that proceeding under ULCRA, 1976
was concluded on said date. As per averment made in the writ petition,
registered sale deed was made in favor of petitioner on 11.10.1995 and
21.10.1988 by Babban Sonkar and Yogendra Prasad. On date of
registration of sale deed i.e. on 11.10.1995, land has already been vested
in State Government as possession is said to have been taken under
Section 10(6) on 20.10.1989. So far as sale deed dated 21.10.1988 is
concerned sale deed could not have been executed during pendency of
case. Notification under Section 10(3) was made on 04.04.1986 and land
vested in the State Government, therefore, no transaction could be done
by second registered sale deed dated 21.10.1988. No appeal was
preferred under section 33 before the appellate authority nor any
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26605
5 WP-14152-2017
revision was preferred before State Government challenging vesting of
land in the State Government. However, after conclusion of proceeding
under ULCRAA, 1999, registered sale deed was executed in favor of
petitioner. In absence of challenge to proceedings under ULCRA, 1976
owner of land does not have any right to sell the land to petitioner.
Registered sale deed made in name of petitioner is not valid.
7. Section 27 prohibits transfer of land within period of 10 years
of commencement of the Act. During pendancy of proceeding, transfer
can only be made with permission. In this case, proceeding has already
been concluded which has not been challenged. Since, proceeding has
been concluded and land has been vested in a State Government and
original owner had not made any objections or challenge to said
proceeding in appeal or revision, therefore, no rights will accrue in favor
of petitioner and he cannot challenge the proceedings. No benefit of
Section 4 of ULCRRA, 1999 can be given to petitioner as no proceeding
i.e. appeal or revision was pending after vesting of land with the State
Government. In this case, proceeding has already been concluded,
therefore, there was no question of abatement.
8. It is also submitted by counsel for the petitioner that whole
proceedings are null and void as land of petitioner does not fall within
urban agglomeration and there is no notification under Section 2(N) of
ULCRA, 1976 is published, therefore, proceedings could not have been
initiated under said Act. Collector has specifically dealt with the issue
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26605
6 WP-14152-2017
and has held that land is included in the Master Plan and within the
limits of urban agglomeration. Said fact has been discussed by Collector
and distances has also been mentioned. Since, land is included within the
limits of urban agglomeration, therefore, action can be taken in respect
of urban land which falls within definition of under Section 2(O).
Question of fact regarding distance of land from urban agglomeration
cannot be reopened in writ petition and findings giving by Collector that
land is situated within the limits of urban agglomeration is final in
nature. Land of petitioner will be covered under Section 2(O).
9. In these circumstances, no interference is called for, hence, writ
petition is dismissed.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
$A
