Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramesh Chandra vs The State Of M.P. on 25 June, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:14906
1 WA-198-06; 199-06; & 230-06
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
WRIT APPEAL No. 198 of 2006
NITIN
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
..............................................................................................................................
Appearance:
None for the appellant.
Shri Sudeep Bhargava - Deputy Advocate General for the
respondent / State.
.............................................................................................................................
WITH
WRIT APPEAL No. 199 of 2006
SARASWATI NAGAR GRIH NIRMAN
Versus
STATE OF M.P AND OTHERS
..............................................................................................................................
Appearance:
None for the appellant.
Shri Sudeep Bhargava - Deputy Advocate General for the
respondent / State.
.............................................................................................................................
WRIT APPEAL No. 230 of 2006
RAMESH CHANDRA
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 6/25/2025
5:08:47 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:14906
2 WA-198-06; 199-06; & 230-06
..............................................................................................................................
Appearance:
None for the appellant.
Shri Sudeep Bhargava - Deputy Advocate General for the
respondent / State.
.............................................................................................................................
Reserved on : 19/06/2025
Pronounced on : 25/06/2025
ORDER
Per: Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi
Having regard to the similitude of controversy involved, commonality
of dispute, these writ appeals are being disposed of by this common order and
for the sake of brevity the facts of Writ Appeal No.198/2006 are narrated
hereunder.
02. This writ appeal under Section 2 of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya
(Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been directed against the
order of the writ Court dated 17/04/2006 passed in Writ Petition No.1197/2001,
whereby the writ petition has been dismissed.
03. It is undisputed and a judicial notice can be taken of the facts that Urban
Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter for short referred to as
'ULC Act') came into force on 17/02/1976 and was adopted for the State of
M.P. on 09/09/1976. It is also undisputed that Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, came in to force in the Madhya Pradesh on
17/02/2000.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:14906
3 WA-198-06; 199-06; & 230-06
04. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass are that the land bearing
survey No.663/1 area 0.291 hectares, situated within the planning area of
Indore and a Development Plan (Master Plan) was prepared by the State
Government. The original owner was holding several lands admeasuring 7.855
hectares and the land in question is a very small part thereof. The land in
question was sold to Shiv Kumar and Nirmal on 01/08/1987 by registered sale
deed, thereafter, the said land was sold on 14/05/1997 to the appellant. The
original land owner Vishnu filed a Return (Vivarani dated 16/05/1977, Annex.-
R/1) under Section 6 of the 'ULC Act' for his entire holding including the land
in question and B-1 Khatauni (Annex.-R/2) for Village Khajrana, Indore was
prepared in the year 1976-77. Draft statement (Annex.-R/3) was sent by
registered post and served on landholders on 19/07/1978. Final statement
(Annex.-R/4) issued under the ULC Act and land 0.340 hectare was declared
surplus in survey No.663, Village Khajrana, Indore. Notification (Annex.-R/6)
under Section 10(1) of the ULC Act was published in Official Gazette on
19/01/1996. The petitioner allegedly purchased 0.291 hectares of land through
registered sale deed from prior owner on 14/05/1997. Notification (Annex.-R/7)
under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act was published on 21/05/1999 and
notification (Annex.-R/8) under Section 10(5) of ULC Act was issued to
original landholders on 06/08/1999. On the same day possession of surplus
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:14906
4 WA-198-06; 199-06; & 230-06
land was taken by the State under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act and on the
same day Panchnama was drawn on the site and land in revenue record was
mutated in the name of government.
05. An appeal bearing number 168/98-99 was filed by the legal heirs of
Vishnu / Ramaji, was dismissed on 23/03/2000. Assailing the aforesaid, Writ
Petition No.1399/2000 challenging the ceiling proceeding was filed on
10/07/2000 and the same was disposed of on 05/12/2000 remitting back the
matter to the appellate authority. Thereafter, the appellate authority passed a
fresh order on 18/04/2001 dismissing the appeal with specific mention of Urban
Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, which came in to force in the
Madhya Pradesh on 17/02/2000. Report from Town and Country Planning
Department (Annex.-R/11) refuted the claim of the petitioner that the land use
of the disputed land is 'City Park'. Compensation proceedings were initiated and
notice issued to the holders but the amount remain unclaimed. When the order
of appellate authority was challenged by way of Writ Petition No.1197/2001 the
same was dismissed by the impugned order dated 17/04/2006, which gave rise
to this writ appeal.
06. Impugned order in appeal memo has been challenged on the ground that
land use of the disputed land is 'City Park', therefore, no construction or
building activities were permissible on the said land. Hence, in view of Section
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:14906
5 WA-198-06; 199-06; & 230-06
2(o) and 2(q) of the ULC Act, such land is not covered by the definition of
Urban Vacant Land and is thus exempted from the provisions of ULC Act. It
has also been taken a ground to assail the impugned order that after filing of
Return under Section 6 of the ULC Act for entire land holding by the original
owner Vishnu an application under Section 20 of the ULC Act was filed. On
filing of the said application, respondent No.2 recorded that proceeding of the
case shall remain stayed till the decision on the said application. It was further
ordered that Draft Statement issued under Section 8(1) of the ULC Actis
cancelled, there after a long interval of 11 years, the proceedings were suddenly
recommenced and contrary to the previous proceedings and order, no fresh
Draft Statement was ever issued and proceedings were concluded merely on the
papers without issuing the Draft Statement under Section 8(1) of the ULC Act
and further proceedings including the possession Panchnama were void ab
initio.
07. It has further been stated in the appeal memo that even in the Panchnama
allegedly prepared on 06/08/1999, it has been mentioned that on land bearing
survey No.663, houses are in existence clearly indicates that actual physical
possession of the land was never taken and it is a mere paper Panchnama. No
notice under was issued under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act to the holder or to
the occupier of the land, therefore, the appellant is still in possession.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:14906
6 WA-198-06; 199-06; & 230-06
Thereafter, respondent No.3 illegally and incompetently dismissed the appeal
filed by the appellant by holding that in view of the provisions of Repeal Act,
the appeal filed by the appellant has been abated.
08. It is further stated in the appeal memo that learned Single Judge has not
considered the facts of the case and did not consider that appeal of the appellant
was pending before the respondent No.3 before coming into force of the Repeal
Act and the same was never decided on merits but was dismissed as abated. It
has also not been considered by learned writ Court that the disputed land is not
an Urban Vacant Land under Section 2(o) and 2(q) of the ULC Act. It has also
been overlooked by the learned Single Judge that respondent No.3 had neither
examined nor given any finding with regard to non-compliance of mandatory
provision of Section 10(5) and (6) of the ULC Act. The very cognizance of the
case for the land under the ULC Act was without jurisdiction, without authority
and without competence as the land was beyond the scope of the Act as the
same was neither Vacant nor Urban. Service of the Draft Statement was also not
effected in accordance with the mandatory provisions of Section 8 and Rule 5.
On the above grounds, it has been urged that the order passed by the learned
writ Court is suffering from legal and factual infirmities, therefore, by allowing
this writ appeal, the same may be set aside and the disputed land be restored to
the appellant.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:14906
7 WA-198-06; 199-06; & 230-06
09. Learned counsel for the respondent / State has vehemently supported the
impugned order passed by the learned writ Court stating that there is no legal or
factual infirmity in the order. Same has been passed considering all the aspects
raised before the Court. Since all the proceeding with regard to the disputed
land including taking of possession were completed before coming into force of
the Repeal Act i.e. before 17/02/2000, therefore, benefit of Repeal Act has not
been rightly extended to the appellant. The appellate authority has rightly dealt
with the facts of the case and was right in dismissing the appeal and thereafter,
learned writ Court taking into consideration all the aspects has rightly
dismissed the writ petition, which does not require any interference by this
Court. Learned counsel on the aforesaid premises urges the Court for
dismissing the appeal.
10. Before dwelling into the merits of the case Section 10 of the ULC Act,
which prescribe procedure for acquisition of the vacant land can aptly be
reproduced for ready reference, which runs as under:
"10. Acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling limit:- (1) As
soon as may be after the service of the statement under section 9 on
the person concerned, the competent authority shall cause a
notification giving the particulars of the vacant land held by such
person in excess of the ceiling limit and staling that-
(i) such vacant land is to be acquired by the
concerned State Government : and
(ii) the claims of all persons interested in such vacant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:14906
8 WA-198-06; 199-06; & 230-06
land may be made by them personally or by their agents
giving particulars of the nature of their interests in such
land, to be published for the information of the general
public in the Official Gazette of the State concerned and
in such other manner as maybe prescribed.
(2) After considering the claims of the persons interested in the
vacant land, made to the competent authority in pursuance of the
notification published under sub- section (1), the competent
authority shall determine the nature and extent of such claims and
pass such orders as it deems fit. (3) At any time after the
publication of the notification under sub-section (1) the competent
authority may, by notification published in the Official Gazette of
the State concerned, declare that the excess vacant land referred to
in the notification published under sub-section (1) shall, with effect
from such date as may be specified in the declaration, be deemed to
have been acquired by the State Government and upon the
publication of such declaration, such land shall be deemed to have
vested absolutely in the State Government free from all
encumbrances with effect from the date so specified.
(4) During the period commencing on the date of publication of
the notification under sub-section (1) and ending with the date
specified in the declaration made under sub-section (3) :
(i) no person shall transfer by way of sale, mortgage,
gift, lease or otherwise any excess vacant land (including
any part thereof) specified in the notification aforesaid
and any such transfer made in contravention of this
provision shall be deemed to be null and void; and
(ii) no person shall alter or cause to be altered the use
of such excess vacant land.
(5) Where any vacant land is vested in the State Government
under sub-section (3), the competent authority may, by notice in
writing, order any person who may be in possession of it to
surrender or deliver possession thereof to the State Government or
to any person duly authorised by the State Government in this
behalf within thirty days of the service of the notice. (6) If any
person refuses or fails to comply with an order made under sub-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:14906
9 WA-198-06; 199-06; & 230-06
section (5), the competent authority may take possession of the
vacant land or cause it to be given to the concerned State
Government or to any person duly authorised by such State
Government in this behalf and may for that purpose use such force
as may be necessary.
Explanation.- In this section, in sub-section (1) of section 11 and in
section 14 and section 23 , "State Government", in relation to-
(a) any vacant land owned by the Central
Government, means the Central Government;
(b) any vacant land owned by any State Government
and situated in a Union territory or within the local
limits of a cantonment declared as such under S.3 of the
Cantonments Act, 1924 , means that State Government."
11. A plain reading of the above provision shows that the competent
authority under sub-section (1) shall cause a notification giving the particulars
of vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit and inviting claims from the
persons interested in such vacant land. As per subsection (2) the competent
authority shall pass an appropriate order after considering the claims of persons
interested. Sub-section (3) provides for publication of a notification in the
Official Gazette of a State declaring that the excess vacant land referred to in
the notification published under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to have been
acquired by the State Government with effect from the date specified therein
and upon publication of such declaration, the land shall be deemed to have
vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances with
effect from the date so specified. Subsection (5) further provides for the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:14906
10 WA-198-06; 199-06; & 230-06
issuance of a notice in writing by the competent authority directing any person
who may be in possession of the vacant land which is vested in the State
Government under sub-section (3) to surrender or deliver possession thereof to
the State Government within 30 days of service of the said notice.
12. In the event of the person on whom such notice is served refuses or fails
to comply with the order made under sub-section (5), the competent authority is
empowered under sub-section (6) to take possession of the vacant land. It is
clear from the scheme of Section 10 of the ULC Act that after the publication of
the notification under Section 1(3) declaring that the excess land shall be
deemed to have vested absolutely in the State Government with effect from the
date specified therein, the competent authority will issue a notice under Section
10 (5) calling upon the person in possession of such excess vacant land to
surrender or deliver possession thereof to the State Government within 30 days
of service of the notice and in the event of the failure of such person to
surrender, the possession of the excess vacant land may be taken over by the
competent authority. Sub Section 3 of Section 10 of ULC Act specifically
provides that after issuance of notice under Section 10 (3) no one has right to
sale, alienate, transfer or otherwise the land came into the ceiling, therefore,
under the head of 'otherwise', even the transfer by way of judgment and decree
passed on concern is also prohibited.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:14906
11 WA-198-06; 199-06; & 230-06
13. We have heard the learned counsel for the State at length and also
considered the submissions taking into consideration material available on
record.
14. To rebut the plea that disputed land does not fall under the definition of
'Vacant Land' under the ULC Act, learned Dy. Advocate General places reliance
on a judgment passed by the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of
the State of U.P. and another Vs. Radha Raman Agrawal and Another
[1987 SCC OnLine All 159] in which it has been held that the vacant land has
thus been defined to include all land not being mainly used for agriculture in an
urban agglomeration. He has also placed reliance on a judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kewal Court Private Limited and another
Vs. State of West Bengal and others [(2023) 10 Supreme Court Cases 734]
in which it has been held that once the 'vacant land' is notified as excess land,
the competent authority under sub-section (3) would issue declaration
whereupon the 'vacant land' shall be deemed to have vested absolutely in the
State Government free from all encumbrances. Thus, contention with regard to
the fact that the disputed land does not fall under the purview of 'Vacant Land'
as provided under Section 2(o) and 2(q) of the ULC Act is also of no
consequence as the use of the land as 'City Park' has not been proved.
Unauthorised construction, if any, raised on the surplus land will change its
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:14906
12 WA-198-06; 199-06; & 230-06
nature.
15. It is apparent from perusal of the possession Panchnama (Annex.-R/9)
prepared under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act that it was prepared on
06/08/1999 and the disputed land was mutated in the revenue record in the
name of government on the same day. All the proceedings initiated under the
ULC Act were finalized before coming into force of the Repeal Act, which
came in to effect on 17/02/2000 in the State of Madhya Pradesh. After vesting
of the land with the State Government, appellant had no right over the disputed
land. It is also noteworthy that ULC Act was adopted by the State of Madhya
Pradesh on 09/09/1976, therefore, after coming into force of this Act, The land
in question was sold to Shiv Kumar and Nirmal on 01/08/1987 by registered
sale deed, thereafter, the said land was sold on 14/05/1997 to the appellant.
These sales are null and void and are of no consequence in view of the
provisions as contained in Section 5(2) of the ULC Act, which runs as under:
"5. Transfer of vacant land. - (1) xxxxxxxxxxxx
(2) Where any excess vacant land is selected out of the vacant
land transferred under sub-section (1), the transfer of the excess
vacant land so selected shall be deemed to be null and void."
16. The contention with regard to the non-compliance of Section 10 of ULC
Act has also no force. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Hari Ram
reported in (2013) 4 SCC 280 came into consideration before the Apex Court in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:14906
13 WA-198-06; 199-06; & 230-06
case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manohar Lal reported in 2020
(8) SCC 129 and the Apex Court has overruled the judgment passed in the case
of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Hari Ram (Supra) by holding that provisions of
the Repeal Act could not be extended in such a case where possession has been
taken without following the procedure, and the landowner cannot retain the
land. Once possession has been taken over in the year 1991, any grievance as to
non-compliance of Section 10(5) ought to have been made within a reasonable
time of such dispossession. By sheer lapse of time, the possession would
acquire legitimacy. Thus, the owner or the person in possession must be
deemed to have waived his right under Section 10(5) of the Act. Para 344 be
reproduced below:
"344. In this context, it is noteworthy that the Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, was repealed in the year
1999; thereafter, claims were raised. After repeal, it was claimed
that actual physical possession has not been taken by the State
Government as such repeal has the effect of effacing the
proceedings of taking possession, which it was alleged, was not in
accordance with the law. In State of Assam v. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma
[State of Assam v. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma, (2015) 5 SCC 321],
submission was raised by the State of Assam that physical
possession has been taken over by the competent authority and it
was submitted on behalf of landowner that procedure prescribed
under Section 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)
Act, 1976, was not followed. It was before taking possession under
Section 10(6) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,
1976, the notification under Section 10(5) was necessary; thus, no
possession can be said to have been taken within the meaning of
Section 3 of the Repeal Act. The question this Court had to
consider was whether actual physical possession was taken over
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:14906
14 WA-198-06; 199-06; & 230-06
in that case by the competent authority. The State of Assam
submitted that though possession was taken over in the year 1991,
may be unilaterally and without notice to the landowner. It was
urged that mere non-compliance with Section 10(5) would be
insufficient to attract the provisions of Section 3 of the Repeal Act.
This Court repelled the submission of the landowner and held as
under : (SCC pp. 329-30, paras 15-17)
"15. The High Court has held [Bhaskarjyoti Sarma v. State of
Assam, 2010 SCC OnLine Gau 377] that the alleged
dispossession was not preceded by any notice under Section 10(5)
of the Act. Assuming that to be the case all that it would mean is
that on 7-12-1991 when the erstwhile owner was dispossessed
from the land in question, he could have made a grievance based
on Section 10(5) and even sought restoration of possession to him
no matter he would upon such restoration once again be liable to
be evicted under Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act upon his
failure to deliver or surrender such possession. In reality therefore
unless there was something that was inherently wrong so as to
affect the very process of taking over such as the identity of the
land or the boundaries thereof or any other circumstance of a
similar nature going to the root of the matter hence requiring an
adjudication, a person who had lost his land by reason of the
same being declared surplus under Section 10(3) would not
consider it worthwhile to agitate the violation of Section 10(5) for
he can well understand that even when the Court may uphold his
contention that the procedure ought to be followed as prescribed,
it may still be not enough for him to retain the land for the
authorities could the very next day dispossess him from the same
by simply serving a notice under Section 10(5). It would, in that
view, be an academic exercise for any owner or person in
possession to find fault with his dispossession on the ground that
no notice under Section 10(5) had been served upon him.
17. Reliance was placed by the respondents upon the decision
of this Court in Hari Ram case [State of U.P. v. Hari Ram, (2013)
4 SCC 280 : (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 583] . That decision does not, in
our view, lend much assistance to the respondents. We say so,
because this Court was in Hari Ram case [State of U.P. v. Hari
Ram, (2013) 4 SCC 280 : (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 583] considering
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:14906
15 WA-198-06; 199-06; & 230-06
whether the word "may" appearing in Section 10(5) gave to the
competent authority the discretion to issue or not to issue a notice
before taking physical possession of the land in question under
Section 10(6). The question whether breach of Section 10(5) and
possible dispossession without notice would vitiate the act of
dispossession itself or render it non est in the eye of the law did
not fall for consideration in that case. In our opinion, what
Section 10(5) prescribes is an ordinary and logical course of
action that ought to be followed before the authorities decided to
use force to dispossess the occupant under Section 10(6). In the
case at hand if the appellant's version regarding dispossession of
the erstwhile owner in December 1991 is correct, the fact that
such dispossession was without a notice under Section 10(5) will
be of no consequence and would not vitiate or obliterate the act of
taking possession for the purposes of Section 3 of the Repeal Act.
That is because Bhabadeb Sarma, erstwhile owner, had not made
any grievance based on breach of Section 10(5) at any stage
during his lifetime implying thereby that he had waived his right
to do so."
17. As far as the contention with regard to not taking physical possession of
the land is concerned, the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of
Kapila Ben Ambalal Patel Vs. The State of Gujarat [(2021) 12 SCC 95] is
of much importance, which is reproduced as under:
"26. The respondents had additionally relied on the decision of
this Court in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (supra), wherein the Court
adverted to the exposition in Balwant Narayan Bhagde v. M.D.
Bhagwat, Balmokand Khatri Educational and Industrial Trust v.
State of Punjab and Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. A. Viswam
(Dead) by LRs. 22 regarding the settled legal position that it is
difficult to take physical possession of the land under
compulsory acquisition. Further, that the normal mode of taking
possession is drafting the Panchnama in the presence of
Panchas and taking possession and giving delivery to the
beneficiaries is accepted mode of taking possession of the land.
Subsequent thereto, the retention of possession would
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:14906
16 WA-198-06; 199-06; & 230-06
tantamount only to illegal or unlawful possession. Reliance is
also placed on paragraphs 14 to 16 of Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma
(supra). However, it is not necessary for us to dilate on these
aspects having agreed with the conclusion recorded by the
Division Bench of the High Court that the writ petition filed in
the year 2001 by the appellants with limited relief of questioning
the Possession Panchnama dated 20.3.1986, suffered from
laches. The Division Bench of the High Court noted that the
learned single Judge completely glossed over this 20 (1976) 1
SCC 700 (paragraph 28) 21 (1996) 4 SCC 212 (paragraph 4) 22
(1996) 8 SCC 259 (paragraph 9) crucial aspect of the matter,
and we find no reason to depart from that conclusion."
[Emphasis Supplied]
18. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Narayan & Others Vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Another (passed in Writ Appeal No.81 of
2006 on 14/02/2022) has held that the State is not supposed to physically reside
or occupy the land once the possession is taken after the drawing of
Panchnama. After drawing the Panchnama taking possession of the land, if
anyone makes re-entry over the land then he is deemed to be a trespasser on the
land which is in the possession of the State. The Division Bench has further
held that if the actual possession of the land is taken over by the State, then the
grievance about the non-compliance of Section 10(5) of the ULC Act has to be
taken within reasonable time of the possession. If the land owner failed to take
such objection within a reasonable time, then he has been deemed to have
waived his right under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act. Paragraphs - 15, 16 & 17
of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced below:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:14906
17 WA-198-06; 199-06; & 230-06
"15. A constitution bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal [2020 (8) SCC
129] considered the question when is physical possession is said
to have been taken under the provisions of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894. The court held that when the State draws up a
memorandum or Panchnama of taking possession, that amounts
to taking the physical possession of the land. When vacant land
is acquired, the State is not supposed to put some person or the
police in possession to retain it and start cultivation till the time
the land is used for the purpose for which it is acquired. The
State is not supposed to physically reside or occupy the land
once the possession is taken after drawing of Panchnama. After
drawing Panchnama taking possession of the land, if any one
makes re-entry over the land then he is deemed to be a trespasser
on the land which is in the possession of the State. It was further
held that once possession is taken by drawing of Panchnama the
lands vests in the government free from encumbrances.
Thereafter any illegal re-entry over the land cannot have the
effect of divesting the land once it vests in the State.
16. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ghisilal [2021 SCC
Online SC 1098] a two-judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court considered the issue of taking possession of vacant land
under the Act of 1976. While following the dictum of the
constitution bench in Indore Development Authority [Supra], it
was held that taking possession of the vacant land by drawing a
Panchnama amounts to taking physical possession of the land.
17. Further, in State of Assam Vs. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma and
others [(2015) 5 SCC 321] an argument was raised that when
the possession of the land was taken, the provision of Section
10(5) of the Act of 1976 was not followed and hence no
possession can be said to have been taken within the meaning of
Section 3 of the Repeal Act of 1999. This argument was repelled
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by holding that if the actual
possession of the land is taken over by the State then the
grievance about noncompliance with Section 10(5) has to be
taken within reasonable time of dispossession. If the land owner
failed to take such objection within reasonable time then he has
deemed to have waived his right under Section 10(5). The
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:14906
18 WA-198-06; 199-06; & 230-06
decision and reasoning of Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma (Supra) was
approved by the constitution bench of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (Supra).
In the present case, appellants filed an application alleging non-
compliance with Section 10(5) and 10(6) in 2004 whereas the
possession of the land was taken over by the State in 1994 i.e.,
10 years earlier. The appellants, it is clear, did not object to the
taking over of the possession within reasonable time. Thus, we
are of the view, that on this additional point too, the possession
of the State obtained legitimacy and cannot be questioned at this
stage when the land is already vested in the State and its name
mutated in the revenue records."
[Emphasis Supplied]
19. In light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that
appellant could not point out any illegality in the impugned order passed by the
learned writ Court. Resultantly, all the writ appeals have no substance, fail and
are hereby dismissed.
20. Let a copy of this order be kept in the record of all other connected
appeals.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Tej
