Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ankit Grah Nirman Sahkari Sanstha … vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 December, 2024
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 19st OF DECEMBER, 2024
REVIEW PETITION NO. 734 of 2020
ANKIT GRAH NIRMAN SAHKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT
Vs.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPEARANCE:
Shri Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj - Senior Advocate with Shri Anand
Bhardwaj - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri A.K. Nirankari - Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
1. The present review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 is preferred by the petitioner in respect of
judgment dated 09-08-2019 passed in Writ Appeal No.447 of 2016
(The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ankit Grah Niram Sahkari
Sanstha) whereby the writ appeal preferred by the State of Madhya
Pradesh is allowed and the order dated 28-06-2013 passed in Writ
Petition No.2972 of 2008 has been set aside. Said Writ Petition
No.2972 of 2008 was dismissed with costs. Therefore, this review
petition is preferred seeking review of the judgment dated 09-08-
2019 passed by learned Division Bench.
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that one Gulab Chand Sharma
S/o Baldev resident of Ohadpur, Gwalior filed a statement under sub-
section (1) of Section 6 of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,
2
1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1976”) read with Rule 3
and 9 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules, 1976 in
respect of the land of his share admeasuring 25.489 hectare in Village
Ohadpur, survey numbers of which are referred in the impugned
judgment. The competent authority vide order dated 22-09-1989
prepared Draft Statement under Section 8 of the Act of 1976. Holder
of land Gulab Chand was found to be holding the land of 1,26,131
square meters in excess, to what he was entitled for under Section 4
of the Act of 1976 i.e. 1500 square meters. Final draft was prepared
on 22-09-1989 under Section 9 of the Act of 1976.
3. Land was declared surplus vide order dated 06-12-1989.
4. That under section 10 (1) of the Act of 1976, notification was issued
on 31-03-1990 and under Section 10 (3) of the Act of 1976,
notification was issued on 24-05-1990. Under Section 10 (5) of the
Act of 1976 notice was issued on 19-06-1990, which was duly
received by the holder on 10-07-1990.
5. However, in an appeal under section 33 of the Act of 1976, the
Appellate Authority by order dated 30-03-1994 set aside the order
dated 06-12-1989 and relegated the matter to the Competent
Authority for fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to the
holder.
6. Competent Authority on remand, after affording opportunity of
hearing to the holder passed fresh order on 29-02-1996, declaring
113621 Sq. Mt. land with the holder as surplus land. The order was
served on the holder on 16-03-1996 under acknowledgment, received
by him on 23-03-1996. The copy of acknowledgment is on the
record.
7. Once again under Section 10 (1) of the Act of 1976 notification was
3
issued on 16-05-1996, which was also displayed on the notice board
of the Court of Competent Authority at Collector’s Office, Office of
Tahsildar Gwalior and at Municipal Corporation, Gwalior. That
notification under section 10 (3) of the Act of 1976 was issued vide
No.94/88-89 dated 23-08-1996. Thereafter on 27-09-1996 notice
under section 10 (5) of the Act of 1976 was issued; whereby, the
holder was called upon to hand over vacant possession of land to
Nazul Tahsildar, Gwalior within 30 days from the date of receiving
the notice, failing which it was ordered that the action will be taken
for taking possession. Copy was endorsed to Tahsildar Nazul,
Gwalior for his information and necessary action. The copy of the
notice, on record, overleaf records service thereof by the process
server (okn rkehy is’k % enuflag % 4@11@1996).
8. That in pursuance to order of Competent Authority in Case No.94/88-
89/B-121 the possession of 113621 Sq. Mt. land was taken “Kabja
Raseed” on the land reveals that the possession of the same was taken
ex parte. The record reveals as noticed supra that the holder also filed
an appeal under section 33 of the Act of 1976 which was dismissed
on 03-04-2000, in the terms of the Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “the Repeal
Act, 1999”).
9. From the record it is reflected that after notification under Section 10
(3) of the Act of 1976 which was on 23-08-1996 the holder of the
land in question executed two sale deeds on 31-12-1999 and 06-02-
2001 in favour of Ankit Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha (review
petitioner).
10. Vide sale deed dated 31-12-1999 the holder sold the following land;
viz.
4
dz0 losZ dz0 jdok yxku 149 151/2 0.489 gSDVj 152/1 152/2 0.418 gSDVj 166 0.230 gSDVj 172 0.178 gSDVj 180 0.251 gSDVj 295 0.418 gSDVj 297 0.073 gSDVj 320 0.715 gSDVj 337 1.035 gSDVj
dqy fdrk 14 dqy jdok 4-232 gSDVj Hkwfe esa fgLlk 1@2
Vide sale deeds dated 31-12-1999 and 06-02-2001 holder of
the land Gulab Chand sold the land, part of which are reflected in the
judgment passed in Writ Appeal viz.
dz0 losZ dz0 jdok yxku
149, 151/2, 152/1 0.292 gSDVj
150 0.282 gSDVj
151/1 0.470 gSDVj
152/2 0.470 gSDVj
153 0.700 gSDVj
154 0.031 gSDVj
155 0.157 gSDVj
156 0.105 gSDVj
157 0.055 gSDVj
158 1.181 gSDVj
159 1.390 gSDVj
160 0.679 gSDVj
161 0.408 gSDVj
162 0.418 gSDVj
163 0.735 gSDVj
164 0.435 gSDVj
5
165 0.146 gSDVj
166 0.209 gSDVj
167 0.167 gSDVj
169 0.073 gSDVj
170 0.219 gSDVj
171 0.031 gSDVj
173 0.387 gSDVj
174 0.063 gSDVj
175 0.324 gSDVj
176 1.389 gSDVj
177 0.554 gSDVj
178 0.125 gSDVj
182 0.366 gSDVj
185 0.125 gSDVj
186 0.125 gSDVj
187 0.094 gSDVj
188 0.596 gSDVj
189 0.749 gSDVj
190 0.105 gSDVj
168 0.198 gSDVj
181 0.094 gSDVj
190 0.209 gSDVj
192 2.759 gSDVj
193 0.595 gSDVj
194
197/1 1.944 gSDVj
197/2
198
295 0.272 gSDVj
dqy fdrk 42 dqy jdok 21-206 gSDVj esa fodzsrk dk fgLlk 1@2
gSDVj Hkwfe fodzhrA
11. Evidently, the land which has been declared surplus and vested with
the State Government vide Notification under section 10 (3) of the
Act of 1976 dated 23-08-1996 was sold by the erstwhile holder.
6
12. Review petitioner society which was respondent in Writ Appeal
purchased the land vide sale deed dated 31-12-1999 and 06-02-2001,
filed writ petition No.2972 of 2008 seeking direction for correction
of Khasra entries and for recording the name of the society on the
plea that with the promulgation of the Repeal Act, 1999, all the
proceedings under the Act of 1976 stood abated. It was urged that
when the society purchased the land vide registered sale deed dated
31-12-1999 and 06-02-2001 they were not aware that the holder of
the land had preferred an appeal against the order dated 29-02-1996
before the Commissioner under section 33 of the Act of 1976 and that
the appeal was dismissed on 03-04-2000.
13. It was further urged that the right accrued in favour of the society
over the land on the basis of said registered sale deeds. No action
having been taken by the State of Madhya Pradesh and its
functionaries in taking physical possession of the property in
question resulted in abatement of all the proceedings as per the
Repeal Act, 1999.
14. On behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh it was stated that with the
passing of order on 29-02-1996 declaring the land in question as
surplus and the vesting of land in the State Government. With the
issuance of notification under section 10 (3) of the Act of 1976 and
taking physical possession thereof on 15-06-1997, no right remained
in the holder as could have led him sell the surplus land to the
Society; therefore, it was urged that no vested right accrued in the
favour of society on the basis of sale deeds dated 31-12-1999 and 06-
02-2001 which were void ab initio. It was urged that the petitioner-
Society had no locus standi to maintain the writ petition.
15. Learned Single Judge after considering the rival submissions, passed
7
the order dated 28-06-2013 and allowed the writ petition preferred by
the petitioner and proceedings of ceiling initiated under the
provisions of the Act of 1976, declared to be abated in relation to half
share of the land as mentioned in para 5.2 and 5.3 of the writ petition
with a further declaration that petitioner is legally entitled to hold the
land as owner in accordance with law. Against that order, writ appeal
was preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh which was barred by
time. Vide order dated 03-07-2019 passed in writ appeal after
considering the rival submission and the judgments of Apex Court,
delay in filing the writ appeal was condoned and matter was posted
for hearing on admission.
16. Thereafter the present review petitioner (respondent society in writ
appeal) sought adjournments time and again but ultimately, matter
was heard finally on 09-08-2019. Vide vide order dated 09-08-2019,
the writ appeal preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh was
allowed and the impugned order dated 28-06-2013 passed in writ
petition No.2972 of 2008 was set aside. Resultantly, the writ petition
No.2972 of 2008 was dismissed with costs.
17. Against the said order, instant review petition was preferred by the
petitioner society which was earlier dismissed for want of
prosecution on 14-03-2024 by learned Division Bench. Later on, vide
order dated 01-07-2024, the review petition was restored to its
original number subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/-. Since then,
review petition is pending.
18. It is the submission of learned senior counsel appearing for the
review petitioner/society that the moot questions that arise for
consideration are two fold (i) What is the effect of the Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 and (ii) How the
8
possession can be said to be taken under the Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act 1976.
19. According to learned senior counsel, possession was never taken
from the land holder and the appeal preferred against the order dated
29-02-1996 when the land was declared surplus, got abated because
of the effect of the Repeal Act, 1999. Therefore, learned Writ
Appellate Court erred in passing the impugned judgment and
ignoring the judgment of Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar
Pradesh Vs. Hari Ram, (2013) 4 SCC 280, on the contrary learned
Writ Court rightly applied the judgment passed in the case of Hari
Ram (supra) in the given facts situation.
20. According to learned senior counsel appearing for the review
petitioner, one more aspect deserves consideration is that possession
of holder of the land Gulab Chand was recorded in Khasra entries of
year 2006-2007, therefore, it is reflected that possession was never
taken from holder of the land Gulab Chand Sharma. Therefore, the
instant review petition deserves to be allowed.
21. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State (appellant in
writ appeal) opposed the prayer. According to him, learned Writ
Appellate Court has taken all aspects into consideration including the
effect of Section 10(3), 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act of 1976.
Possession was taken from earlier land holder. He prayed for
dismissal of the present review petition.
22. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents/record appended thereto.
23. The instant review petition is preferred by the society which was
petitioner in writ petition and was respondent in writ appeal.
24. Scope of review is well defined. In the case of Kamlesh Verma
9
Vs. Mayawati and Others, (2013) 8 SCC 320, principles
relating to review jurisdiction have been laid down.
The principles relating to review jurisdiction may be
summarized as follows:
When the review will be maintainable:
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which,
after the exercise of due diligence, was not within
knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by
him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.
The words “any other sufficient reason” have been
interpreted in Chhajju Ram Vs. Neki, (1921-22) 49 IA 144 and
approved by this Court in the case of Moran Mar Basselios
Catholicos Vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius, AIR 1954
SC 526 to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least
analogous to those specified in the rule”.
When the review will not be maintainable:
“(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to
reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original
hearing of the case.
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error,
manifest on the face of order, undermines its soundness or
results in miscarriage of justice.
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an
10erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for
patent error.
(vi) The meres possibility of two views on the subject cannot be
a ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be
an error which has to be fished out and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the
domain of the appellate Court, it cannot be permitted to be
advanced in the review petition.
(ix) Reviews is not maintainable when the same relief sought at
the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.”
25. It is also held by the Apex Court in the case of State Of West
Bengal & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sengupta & Anr., (2008) 8 SCC 612
that mistake or error apparent on the face of the record means that
mistake or error which is prima facie visible and does not require
any detail examination. Erroneous view of law is not a ground for
review and review cannot partake the category of the appeal.
26. Now the factual matrix of the present case is to be tested on the
anvil of the guidance delineated by the Apex Court as referred
above.
27. Learned Writ Court considered the aspect of vesting of land under
sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 10 of the Act of 1976. Section
10(3) and 10(4) of the Act of 1976 read as under:
“10(3). At any time after the publication of the notification
under subsection (1), the competent authority may, by
notification published in the Official Gazette of the State
concerned, declare that the excess vacant land referred to,
11in 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.
10(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.
28. Considering the effect and impact of Section 10(3) and (4) of the Act
of 1976, learned Writ Appellate Court relying upon the judgments
passed in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Adarsh
Seva Sahkari Samiti Limited, (2016) 12 SCC 493 and State of
Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Surendra Pratap and others, (2016)
12 SCC 497 came to the conclusion that the land was vested in State
of Madhya Pradesh free from all encumbrances. When the land was
vested in State way back in 1996 itself then previously the land
holder namely Gulab Chand who was holder of the land prior to
12
vesting, had no authority to execute the sale deeds on 31-12-1999
and 06-02-2001. In fact it was a sale void-ab-initio.
29. The Apex Court has considered the question of locus standi also in
those judgments cited above and rightly came to the conclusion that
the person like petitioner in the present case has no locus standi to
challenge the proceedings and question of possession once they came
to concluded in respect of original land holder.
30. In the case of Sulochana Chandrakant Galande Vs. Pune
Municipal Transport and others, (2010) 8 SCC 467, the Apex
Court discussed the scheme of the Act of 1976 qua terms of
“Vesting”, “Encumbrances” and “Free from Encumbrances” and
discussed that provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and General
Clauses Act, 1897. The decision in the case of Sulochana
Chandrakant Galande (supra) was later followed in the case of
Omprakash Verma and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and
others, (2010) 13 SCC 158, wherein it is held:
“53 Once vesting takes place under Section 10 (3) of the
Ceiling Act, the State has absolute title and ownership over
it. The owner has no further say in respect of the land that
has vested in the State…..”
31. To bring clarity in respect of “locus standi”, relevant discussion in
the case of Adarsh Seva Sahkari Samiti Limited (supra) is
reproduced as under:
“3. Since, the purchase of the lands is after the statutory
vesting of the land with the State Government, therefore, at
the instance of the respondent herein, the relief ought not to
have been granted by the High Court in its favour. The
correctness of taking over possession of such excess vacant
13land declared by the competent authority in the notification
published or his authorised officer could not have been
examined and granted the relief by the High Court at the
instance of the respondent herein, who has purchased the
lands, after vesting of the lands with the State Government,
which is statutorily void, the learned Senior Counsel for the
appellants Mr Misra submits that the respondent is not
entitled for the relief granted by the High Court in the
impugned judgment order. This aspect of the matter has not
been examined by the High Court, though it is not urged
before the High Court. Since it is a legal question and it
can be urged at any time, therefore, the said contention is
pressed into operation by the learned Senior Counsel in
these proceedings.
4. We have examined this aspect. Having regard to the
undisputed fact that the respondent has purchased the
property from the declarant which is vested with the State
Government under Section 10(5) of the Act in terms of
Section 10(3) notification, therefore, the transfer of
property in favour of the respondent, who is claiming its
interest in the said property is void ab initio in law. On this
ground alone, the order passed by the High Court cannot
be allowed to sustain.
5. It is also brought to our notice by the learned Senior
Counsel Mr Misra that after the proceedings under
Sections 10(3) and 10(5), notice and the alleged taking over
possession of the lard in question, the subsequent event has
taken place, namely, the said property has been transferred
14to the Lucknow Development Authority by the State
Government and the Development Authority has laid a park
for public use. On this, the learned Senior Counsel for the
respondent submits that the said event has taken place
during the pendency of the proceedings before the High
Court. Though it may be the fact, subsequently, after the
transfer of the property in favour of the Development
Authority, the Authority has developed a park is an
undisputed fact. This is also a very relevant aspect of the
matter for this Court to annul the impugned judgment/order
passed by the High Court.
6. In our opinion, the respondent herein has no locus standi
to challenge the inaction on the part of the appellants viz,
not taking possession legally strictly complying with the
statutory provisions under Section 10(5) of the Act and
taking over possession as provided under Section 10(6) of
the Act. At this juncture, this aspect need not be examined
by this Court at the instance of the respondent.”
32. Not only this, a fraud is perpetrated by petitioner in collusion with
erstwhile land holder Gulab Chand. The present society made an
attempt to snatch the land which is already vested with the State. The
Repeal Act, 1999 was published on 22 nd March, 1999 and became
effective in State of Madhya Pradesh w.e.f. 17-02-2000. Review
petitioner society and erstwhile land holder knew this fact very well
that the Repeal Act, 1999 has been promulgated and soon it will be
given effect to, therefore, they entered into illegal and unholy
transactions just to defraud the State of Madhya Pradesh from the
valuable piece of land. In fact one sale deed dated 06-02-2001 was
15
executed even after the Repeal Act, 1999 was notified and came into
effect on 17-02-2000. This was nothing else than a fraud and
mischief.
33. Fraud vitiates all solemn proceedings. It is well settled principle of
law that Fraud Vitiates Everything. This principle has been dealt
with by the Apex Court in its various judgments viz. in the case of R.
Ravindra Reddy Vs. H. Ramaiah Reddy, (2010) 3 SCC 214,
Badami Bai (D) Tr. L.R. Vs. Bhali, (2012) 11 SCC 574, Uddar
Gagan Properties Ltd. Vs. Sant Singh, (2016) 11 SCC 378, K.D.
Sharma Vs. SAIL, (2008) 12 SCC 481, Express Newspapers (P)
Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (1986) 1 SCC 133, DDA Vs. Skipper
Construction, (2007) 15 SCC 601 and in the case of Jai Narain
Parasrampuria Vs. Pushpa Devi Saraf, reported in (2006) 7 SCC
756.
34. In R. Ravindra Reddy (supra), the Apex Court held as under:
“39. As far as fraud is concerned, it is no doubt true, as
submitted by Mr Ramachandran, that fraud vitiates all
actions taken pursuant thereto and in Lord Denning’s words
“fraud unravels everything…….”
35. When the State of Madhya Pradesh took specific stand that
possession has already been taken way back in 1996 itself and even
the appeal preferred by the land holder was suffering from inordinate
delay and laches and apparently at the instance of review petitioner
society, then the finding regarding possession, cannot be altered
because even at that point of time when possession was taken,
present petitioner was not in picture at all. Petitioner society came
much later in picture when proceedings were concluded under the Act
of 1976. Therefore, petitioner never had any occasion to challenge
16
the factum of proceedings including the factum of possession. Writ
Appellate Court rightly taken all these aspects into consideration.
36. Simply on the basis of Khasra entries of year 2006-2007 of erstwhile
land holder, cannot give any right or cause of action to the present
petitioner society to agitate. Khasra entries are presumptive in nature
and it does not confer any right, title or interest. Khasra entries in fact
were having no meaning when possession of the land had already
been taken from the original land holder Gulab Chand Sharma.
37. In the cumulative analysis no case for review of a well reasoned order
is made out. The points which are being raised by the review
petitioner in the review petition are already decided by learned
Division Bench in the order dated 09-08-2019 passed in Writ Appeal.
Scope of review is not to re-appreciate the points already decided, it
is well defined and limited as referred above. Thus, in the considered
opinion of this Court, no case for review is made out. Review petition
stands dismissed. Order dated 09-08-2019 passed by learned Division
Bench in Writ Appeal No.447 of 2016 stands affirmed.
38. Review petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed.
(ANAND PATHAK) (RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
Anil* JUDGE JUDGE
ANIL KUMAR
CHAURASIYA
2024.12.23
10:33:48
+05'30'