Deprivation of property right can only be in accordance with the procedure established by law, the Supreme Court on 19.01.2021(Tuesday) comprising of a bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Hrishikesh Roy stated this in a case which involved proceedings under Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960. (Bajranga (Dead) By Lrs Vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh)
Facts of the Case
The predecessors of the appellant was bhumiswami of agricultural dry land measuring 64.438 acres situated in Village Bagadua, MP, which was in excess of the ceiling limit prescribed as per S. 7(b) of MP Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960, whereby the prescribed limit was set at 54 acres. Therefore, the competent authority had initiated the process to acquire the surplus land. In furtherance of the aforesaid, the State had initiated the process of taking over possession and eviction under Section 248 of the MP Land Revenue Code, 1959. The appellant, being aggrieved filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction before the Trial Court. The appellant contended that the proceedings were illegal as he was actually left with only 54 acres of land which was within the prescribed ceiling limit in view of the fact that the land measuring 17 bighas and 7 biswa had been decreed in favour of one Jenobai, who was in possession by cultivation for about 20 years.
The Trial Court had held that the appellant was the original bhumiswami and the suit with Jenobai was collusive as she was the mother-in-law of the appellant and the endeavour was to prevent the surplus land from being acquired by the State. The appellant filed an appeal before First Appellate Court , which was allowed and the judgment of the trial court was set aside on the ground that the competent authority had failed to comply with the statutory provisions under Section 11(3) and 11(4) of the said Act. However, the said judgment was set aside by the High Court noticing that no information was stated to have been provided to the competent authority giving particulars of the suit of Jenobai. The competent authority was held not to be at fault in the alleged breach of Sections 11(3) and 11(4) of the Act, 1960 as the information germane for the same had not been disclosed.
Contention of the Parties
The appellant canvassed that the civil suit filed was maintainable as the bar of jurisdiction of the civil court did not come into play as specified in Section 46 of the said Act in view of the provisions of Sections 11(4) and 11(5) of the said Act read together.
The plea, thus, was that the Section begins with a saving clause qua the bar of civil court – “Save as expressly provided in this Act…..”
The provisions of Section 46 were pleaded to be expressly subject to the provisions of Section 11(5) of the said Act and the observations in Competent Authority, Tarana District, Ujjain (M.P.) v. Vijay Gupta & Ors. were relied upon, opining that a suit can be filed in a civil court within three months of passing of an order by the competent authority under Section 11(4) of the said Act in view of the provisions of Section 11(5) of the said Act. There was pleaded to be an admission about the disclosure of the appellant regarding the factum of the suit filed by Jenobai in the returns and, thus, the respondents herein were required to wait for the outcome of the suit and should have also invited objections from Jenobai. The decree in the civil suit between the appellant and Jenobai was, thus, submitted to be binding on the competent authority.
On the other hand, the respondents herein reiterated that the suit filed by Jenobai was a collusive one and the object of the institution was to circumvent the provisions of the said Act. In this behalf, it was submitted that the suit under Section 11(5) of the said Act can only be instituted within three months from the date of Section 11(4) order, the date of which is not mentioned. However, even if the date of the subsequent order under Section 11(6) passed on 31.3.1979 is considered, the period of three months elapsed as the suit was filed on 31.8.1979/3.9.1979 (there is some discrepancy qua the dates as recorded in different proceedings). Further under Section 11(5) of the said Act, a suit can only be filed for setting aside the order under Section 11(4) of the said Act but no such prayer was made.
It was urged that after the order under Section 11(6) of the said Act is passed, the land vests with the State under Section 12 of the said Act and, thus, a suit for declaration of title was not maintainable. There was no challenge to the order under Section 11(6) of the said Act and, thus, the suit was not maintainable.
Learned counsel for the respondents herein pleaded that though the appellant raised the issue about the pendency of the suit with Jenobai in the return filed under Section 9 of the said Act, the documents were not produced and exhibited in this behalf even before the trial court. The possession of Jenobai as reflected in the revenue records was not proved by any evidence led inthat behalf. And, in fact, no such objections were filed before the trial court.
Courts Observation & Judgment
In appeal, the bench, first considered the factual issue whether the appellant had filed objections before the competent authority giving particulars of the pendency of the civil suit ? Referring to the pleadings, the court noted an admission by the respondents that the appellant in the return, filed as per Section 9 of the said Act, mentioned the aspect of the pending suit qua the subject land. Referring to Section 11(4) of the Act, the bench observed:
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.
The court observed that the very scheme of the Act has been breached by the respondents herein in not complying with the statutory provisions. In this context, the bench said:
We say 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.
Setting aside the High Court judgment, and restoring the judgment of Appellate Court, the bench observed:
The provisions of the said Act are very clear as to what has to be done at each stage. In our view 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 Jenobai, the proviso came into play which required the respondent authorities to await the decision of the court. Sub-section 5 and thereafter sub-section 6 would kick in only after the mandate of sub-section 4 was fulfilled. In the present case it was not so. Even notice was not issued to Jenobai. She could have clarified the position further. The effect of the decree in favour of Jenobai 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.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
