Chattisgarh High Court
Manohar Jethani And Anr vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors on 8 April, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by 2025:CGHC:16382
RAMESH
KUMAR VATTI NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Order Reserved on : 06.03.2025
Order Delivered on : 08/04/2025
Writ Petition (C) No. 57 of 2014
1. Manohar Jethani S/o Late Dr. Varial Das Jethani, Aged About 49 Years,
R/o Side Kohinoor Hotel, Bans Tal, Amardeep Talkies Road, Raipur,
Police Station Gole Bazar, Raipur, Civil and Revenue District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh- Pin No. 492001
2. Smt. Rita M. Jethani W/o Shri Manohar Jethani, Aged About 44 Years,
R/o Side Kohinoor Hotel, Bans Tal, Amardeep Talkies Road, Police
Station Gole Bazar, Raipur, Civil and Revenue District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh- Pin No. 492001
... Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department,
Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, New Raipur, Police Station Mana,
Tahsil Raipur, Civil and Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh- Pin No.
492001
2. Collector, Collectorate Durg, Police Station Ganj Para, Durg, District :
Durg, Chhattisgarh- Pin No. 491001
3. Competent Authority Additional Collector, Collectorate, Durg, Police
Station Ganj Para, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh- 491001
... Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Y.C. Sharma, Senior Advocate
assisted by Ms. Meera Tiwari,
Advocate
For Respondents/State : Mr. Vinay Pandey,
Deputy Advocate General
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
C A V Judgment
1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-
“10.1 To call for the records of Case No. 295-A/90 (c) / (1) 77-
78 & Case No. 21-A/90/C(1) of 82-83 & Case No. 05/A-90(C) /
2(1) year 85-86 from the court of contempt authority
(Respondent No. 3).
10.2 To issue Writ & quash the order passed by respondent
No. 1 on 11/1/1983 in (ANNEXURE P-3).
10.3 That the Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to set
aside the impugned order dated 11/12/2013 passed by the
respondent No. 3 i.e. Additional Collector Durg (C.G.)
(ANNEXURE P-9) & to allow the application of petitioner dated
21/11/13 (ANNEXURE P-7).
10.4 To issue writ or order & declare that all the orders &
proceedings passed by respondent No. 3 after 11/1/1983 are
illegal, without jurisdiction and are against the principal of
natural justice & quash that orders & proceedings.
10.5 Any other relief, which may be deemed, fit by this
Hon’ble court just and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case may also be provided in favour of the petitioner.”
2. The facts of the present case are as under:-
The father of petitioner No.1 namely Lt. Dr. Varial Das Jethani
was in possession of 11539 sq.mt. of land situated over Survey Nos.
89/1, 97/1, 74/12 and 75/3, situated at village Bhilai, Tehsil Patan,
District Durg.
The Competent Authority/respondent No. 3 received a report
from the Revenue Inspector and registered Case No. 295-A/90 (C) /
(1) year 77-78 on 17.05.1978. In that proceedings, 9539 sq.mt. of land
was declared surplus. On 13.09.1979, the case was closed.
The matter was referred to the State Government on 13.07.1980
under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976
(for short ‘Act 1976’) and vide order dated 11.01.1983, an order was
passed to initiate a fresh proceeding on the ground that the petitioners
were not afforded the proper opportunity.
The late Dr. Varial Das Jethani filed an objection on 18.02.1983.
Vide order dated 25.08.1983, the Competent Authority passed an order
to submit the draft statement with regard to 9539 sq.mt. of land.
3
On 22.11.1983, the late Dr. Varil Das Jethani appeared before
the Competent Authority. His objections were turned down, orders were
passed and a direction was also issued for the publication of a
Notification according to the provisions of Section 10(1) of the Act,
1976. On 28.03.1984, the Competent Authority recorded a finding that
the Notification under Section 10(1) of the Act, 1976 had been
published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette Part-II (1) on Page No. 65
on 06.01.1984. It is also stated that the holder of the land submitted an
affidavit to the effect that he has 04 daughters and all of them are
married on the given date i.e. 09.09.1976. On 28.03.1984, an order
was passed for the publication of a Notification under Section 10(3) of
the Act, 1976.
According to the order sheet dated 29.11.1984, no one appeared
for the landholder. It is recorded that the Notification under Section
10(3) of the Act, 1976 was published on 07.09.1984 in the Madhya
Pradesh Gazette Part-III (4) on Page No. 1604 dated 07.09.1984,
consequently, the matter was closed. On 01.07.1986, a notice was
issued to the holder of the land. On 01.12.1986, again a notice was
issued. On 11.12.1986, the holder of the land appeared before the
Competent Authority and submitted an objection to the effect that a
petition against the proceedings is pending before the High Court and
till its disposal, proceedings may be stayed and consequently, the
proceeding of the case was stayed.
On 13.09.1985, the son of late Dr. Varial Das Jethani namely
Manohar Kumar Jethani appeared before the Competent Authority and
sought time to produce the death certificate of Dr. Varial Das. He stated
before the Competent Authority that he did not want to pursue the
4
matter. He also showed his intent to accept compensation along with
the other co-owners. There was some mistake in the calculation of
compensation, therefore, a direction was issued to pass the amended
order according to the provisions of Section 45 of the Act, 1976. A
notice was issued to petitioner No.1 to receive the compensation. The
documents would show that the compensation was quantified to the
tune of Rs.23,848/- and Rs.5,962/- was received by petitioner No. 1.
On 17.10.2006, 10.11.2006 and 16.11.2006 petitioner No. 1
appeared before the Competent Authority. On 25.11.2006, the counsel
for petitioner No.1 made a submission that the writ petition filed by the
late Dr. Varial Das Jethani is pending before the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh and sought an adjournment. The order passed in M.P. No.
2726/1986 dated 13.08.1987 would show that the possession of the
petitioners was secured until further orders. Vide order dated
19.07.2011, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh passed an order for the
transfer of records of M.P. No. 2726/1986 to the High Court of
Chhattisgarh.
M.P. No. 2726/1986 was registered as WPC No. 5355/2011 in
the High Court of Chhattisgarh. The petition was disposed of vide order
dated 17.01.2013. It is held that if the land in question has been
acquired by the State in the exercise of provisions of Section 10(3) of
the Act, 1976 the acquisition and possession by the State is saved
under the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, 1999. The petitioner was
granted the liberty to move an application before the respondent
authorities and possession of the petitioners was protected till its
decision.
5
The petitioner moved an application under Section 4 of the Act,
1999 and the Competent Authority / Additional Collector, District Durg
rejected it vide order dated 11.12.2013 on the ground that the
provisions contemplated under the Act, 1976 were duly complied with.
The petitioners have challenged the orders dated 11.01.1983,
11.12.2013 and all other orders including proceedings.
3. In return, the State has pleaded that the late Dr. Varial Das Jethani was
survived by 04 daughters and he had no son. It is further pleaded that
the order passed by the Competent Authority on 13.09.1979 was
based on the wrong interpretation of the decision rendered by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India vs. Valluri
Basavaiah, AIR 1979 SC 1415, therefore, the matter was remitted
back to the Competent Authority by the State Government. It is further
pleaded that the surplus land was not used for agricultural purposes,
therefore, it was declared in excess under the provisions of the Act,
1976. It is also pleaded that the Competent Authority complied with the
mandatory provisions of the Act, 1976; the Notifications were published
according to the provisions of Sections 10(1) and 10(3) of the Act,
1976. It is also stated that the compensation was assessed and
petitioner No. 1 accepted it. It is also contended that the land in
question vested with the State Government on 29.11.1984. It is stated
that the Competent Authority rightly rejected the application moved by
the petitioners vide order dated 11.12.2013.
4. Mr. Y.C. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners
would submit that there was no excess vacant land to be surrendered
by the late Dr. Varail Das Jethani and the land was within the ceiling
limit. He would further submit that on the wrong premises, the
6
proceedings under the provisions of the Act, 1976 were initiated. He
would also contend that the late Dr. Varial Das Jethani was survived by
04 daughters and a son. He would also submit that initially no
opportunity was afforded to petitioner No.1 according to the provisions
of Section 6 of the Act, 1976, therefore, the order dated 13.09.1979
was quashed by the State Government and the matter was remitted
back to the Competent Authority to decide it afresh vide order dated
11.01.1983. He would contend that the late Dr. Varial Das Jethani
raised an objection and it was not considered at all by the Competent
Authority. He would further argue that though the draft statement was
prepared according to the provisions of Section 8 of the Act, 1976, but
no notice was issued to the petitioners inviting objections. He would
also argue that the final statement was also published behind the back
of the petitioners. He would further contend that according to the return
filed by the State Government and the order sheets of the Competent
Authority, it is evident that Notifications under the provisions of
Sections 10(1) and 10(3) of the Act, 1976 were published in the Official
Gazette of the State of Madhya Pradesh, but those Notifications have
not been placed on the record. It is argued that petitioner No. 1 moved
an application under the Right to Information Act, but it was informed
that the Notifications were not available. He would also contend that
the possession of the land has not been taken by the State
Government according to the provisions of Section 10 (5) of the Act,
1976 and no notice was issued for the delivery of possession. He
would state that even forceful possession has not been taken by the
State Government according to the provisions of Section 10 (6) of the
Act, 1976. He would further state that the amount of compensation of
7
Rs.5,962/- paid to petitioner No.1 was refunded. In support of his
submissions, he placed reliance on the judgments passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Vinayak Kashinath Shilkar
Vs. Dy. Collector & Competent Authority and Others, Civil Appeal
No. 2615 of 2012 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 14223 of 2009)
dated 29 February, 2012; the matter of State of U.P. Vs. Hari Ram in
Civil Appeal No. 2326 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.
12960 of 2008) dated March 11, 2013; the matter of Gajanan Kamlya
Patil Vs. Addl. Collector & Comp. Auth. & Ors., Civil Appeal No.
2069 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14690 of 2011) dated
February 14, 2014; the matter of Babu Singh Chauhan Vs. Smt.
Rajkumari Jain and Others, AIR 1982 SC 810 and the judgment of
the Allahabad High Court rendered in the matter of Kamlesh Kumar
and Others Vs. State of U.P., through Secretary, Urban Land
Ceiling & Others passed by a Division Bench in Writ- C No. 33286 of
2011.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Vinay Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate
General appearing for the State/respondents would oppose the
submissions made by Mr. Y.C. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel. Mr.
Vinay Pandey would submit that the land of the late Dr. Varial Das
Jethani was not entered into the revenue records before the appointed
day for agriculture purposes according to the provisions of Section 2(o)
of the Act, 1976, therefore, the proceedings under the Act, 1976 were
initiated. He would contend that the land was declared in excess by the
competent authority. He would further contend that the late Dr. Varial
Das Jethani was survived by 04 married daughters and there was no
mention of any son in the proceedings. He would also contend that the
8
petitioners were provided sufficient opportunity and the objection was
also filed by the late Dr. Varial Das Jethani. He would further submit
that Notifications under Sections 10(1) and 10(3) of the Act, 1976 were
published in the Official Gazette on 06.01.1984 and 07.09.1984
respectively. He would also contend that the possession of the land
was taken over by the State Government and the same is evident from
the order sheet dated 29.11.1984. He would argue that the petition i.e.
WPC No. 5355/2011 filed by the petitioners was disposed of vide order
dated 17.01.2013, whereby he was directed to move an application
before the Competent Authority and that application was rejected vide
order dated 11.12.2013. He would further argue that the petitioners
could not demonstrate that they were not afforded the proper
opportunity of hearing and that the procedure contemplated under the
provisions of the Act, 1976 was not followed. He would also argue that
the compensation to the tune of Rs.5,962/- was paid by the State
Government to the petitioners and it was duly accepted. He would
state that petitioner No. 1 moved an application on 23.03.2011 for the
refund of the amount of compensation. He would further state that the
matter was closed on 29.11.1984 and thereafter proceedings were
initiated for the calculation of compensation only and the petitioners
approached the Competent Authority in the year 2006 after 11 years
without assigning sufficient reasons. In support of his submissions, he
placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the matter of Omprakash Verma and Ors. Vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh and Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 997, 998 and 1024 of 2007
and 6115 of 2008. He would submit that the petition deserves to be
dismissed.
9
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records
with utmost circumspection.
7. Section 4 of the Act 1976 deals with ceiling limit. Section 6 states about
persons holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit to file
statements. Section 6 (2) states that the Competent Authority may
serve a notice upon such person requiring him to file the statement
within the specified period. Section 8 deals with the preparation of the
draft statement on the basis of the statement filed under Section 6 and
inquiry. Section 9 states about the final statement. Section 10 deals
with the acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling limit. According
to the provisions of Section 10(1) of the Act 1976 after the service of
the final statement under Section 9, the concerned authority shall
cause a notification published in the Official Gazette of the State. The
authority concerned after considering the claim of the persons
interested in the vacant land, shall pass such orders as it deems fit and
thereafter the authority concerned may publish a notification in the
Official Gazette and declare that excess vacant land referred to in the
notification published under sub-section (1) be deemed to have been
acquired by the State Government. Section 10(5) says that the
Competent Authority may issue notice in writing to the persons to
surrender or deliver possession of surplus land to the State
Government within 30 days. Section 10(6) of the Act says that if such
person refuses or fails to comply with an order made under Section
10(5), the Competent Authority may take possession of the surplus
land by using force as may be necessary.
8. The order sheets of the Competent Authority would show that the
Competent Authority initiated a proceeding under the provisions of the
10
Act, 1976 on the ground that the late Dr. Varial Das Jethani had no
major son on the specified date and he was found in possession of
2000 sq.mt. of land only and 9539 sq.mt. of land was found in surplus.
On 25.08.1983, an order was passed for the preparation of the draft
statement. On 18.11.1983, an Advocate appeared before the
Competent Authority for the late Dr. Varial Das Jethani and raised
objections to the draft statement. The order sheet dated 22.11.1983
would show that the objection raised by the late Dr. Varial Das Jethani
was turned down and an order was passed for the publication of a
Notification according to the provisions of Section 10(1) of the Act,
1976. The Notification under the provisions Section 10(1) of the Act,
1976 was published on 06.09.1984. The order sheet dated 24.03.1983
would reflect that the opportunity was afforded to the petitioners to file
written arguments by 27.03.1984 and the case was set for the final
order on 28.03.1984. On 28.03.1984, the final order was passed and
9539 sq.mt. land was declared surplus. A direction was issued for the
publication of a Notification under the provisions of Section 10(3) of the
Act, 1976 and it was published on 07.09.1984. The order sheet dated
29.11.1984 would show that the Notification under the provisions of
Section 10(3) of the Act, 1976 was published, the possession of
surplus land was taken and the case was closed.
9. The case was reopened for the assessment of compensation which
was quantified to the tune of Rs.23,848/-, Rs.5,962/- was paid to
petitioner No. 1 and it was accepted too, but later on, it was refunded.
A writ petition bearing registration No. M.P. 2726/1986 was filed by the
late Dr. Varial Das Jethani before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
and his possession was secured vide order dated 13.08.1987. While
11
disposing of WPC No. 5355/2011 the coordinate bench vide order
dated 17.01.2013 secured the possession of the petitioners. Thus, it
can be presumed that the late Dr. Varial Das Jethani and the
petitioners remained in continuous possession of the land in question.
10. In the matter of Vinayak Kashinath Shilkar (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held that ‘where the possession of the vacant land
has not been taken over by the State Government by any person duly
authorized by the State Government in this behalf or by the Competent
Authority, the proceedings under the Ceiling Act would not survive.
Mere vesting of the vacant land with the State Government by the
operation of law without actual possession is not sufficient for the
operation of Section 3(1)(a) of the Repealed Act’.
11. In the matter of Hari Ram (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court while
dealing with the provisions of Section 10 of the Act, 1976 held that the
word ‘may’ used in sub-section (5) or sub-section (6) of Section 10 is
mandatory and it has to be understood as ‘shall’. The relevant paras-
34 and 36 are reproduced herein below:-
“34. Requirement of giving notice under sub-sections
(5) and (6) of Section 10 is mandatory. Though the word
‘may’ has been used therein, the word ‘may’ in both the
sub-sections has to be understood as “shall” because a
court charged with the task of enforcing the statute
needs to decide the consequences that the legislature
intended to follow from failure to implement the
requirement. Effect of non-issue of notice under sub-
section (5) or sub-section (6) of Section 11 is that it
might result the land holder being dispossessed without
notice, therefore, the word ‘may’ has to be read as
‘shall’.
36. Above-mentioned directives make it clear that
sub-section (3) takes in only de jure possession and not
de facto possession, therefore, if the land owner is not
surrendering possession voluntarily under sub-section
(3) of Section 10, or surrendering or delivering
possession after notice, under Section 10(5) or
12
dispossession by use of force, it cannot be said that the
State Government has taken possession of the vacant
land.”
12. In the matter of Gajanan Kamlya Patil (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme
Court placing reliance on the judgment rendered in the matter of Hari
Ram (supra) while dealing with sub-section (5) or sub-section (6) of
Section 10 of the Act. 1976 held that the requirement of service of
notice under these provisions is mandatory. The relevant para is
reproduced herein below:-
“37. The requirement of giving notice under sub-
sections (5) and (6) of Section 10 is mandatory. Though
the word “may” has been used therein, the word “may”
in both the sub-sections has to be understood as “shall”
because a court charged with the task of enforcing the
statute needs to decide the consequences that the
legislature intended to follow from failure to implement
the requirement. Effect of non-issue of notice under
sub-section (5) or sub-section (6) of Section 11 is that it
might result in the landholder being dispossessed
without notice, therefore, the word “may” has to be read
as “shall”.”
13. In the matter of Babu Singh Chauhan (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that the mere fact that a person did not actually reside in the
premises which were locked and contained household effects, it cannot
be said that such a person was not in possession of the premises,
possession by a landlord of his property may assume various forms. A
landlord may be serving outside while retaining his possession over a
property or a part of the property by either leaving it in charge of a
servant or by putting his household effects. The relevant para-10 is
reproduced herein below:-
“10. We have gone through the judgment of the High
Court in the light of the arguments of the parties and we
are inclined to agree with the view taken by the High
Court that (from) the mere fact that the lady did not
13actually reside in the premises which were locked and
contained her household effects, it cannot be said that
she was not in possession of the premises so as to
make S. 17 (2) inaplicable. Possession by a landlord of
his property may assume various forms. A landlord may
be serving outside while retaining his possession over a
property or a part of the property by either leaving it in-
charge of a servant or by putting his household effects
or things locked up in the premises. Such an occupation
also would be full and complete possession in the eye
of law.”
14. In the matter of Kamlesh Kumar (supra), it is held that in the absence
of pleadings of service of notice under Section 10 (5) of the Act, 1976
and the preparation of the possession memo and the entries in this
regard, it cannot be held that physical possession of surplus land has
been taken over by the Competent Authority. The relevant para-13 is
reproduced herein below:-
“13. In this case as found above from the pleadings
there is no assertion by the State, that the possession
was actually handed over by the petitioner’s grand
father in pursuance to the notice under Section 10 (5) of
the Act, or that any proceedings were taken under
Section 10 (6) of the Act for taking over possession.
There are no pleadings of service of the notice under
Section 10 (5) and preparation of Dakhalnama
(possession memo) and the entries in Form No. C.L.C.
III (Register for land of which possession has been
taken under Section 10 (5) or 10 (6), in proof of taking
over physical possession of the surplus land.”
15. In the matter of Omprakash Verma (supra) relied on by the State, it is
held that the notifications under Section 10 of the Act were issued and
the panchanama with regard to the possession was also taken and it
was signed by the witnesses. It is further held that where the
possession is to be taken of a large tract of land then it is permissible
to take possession by a properly executed Panchanama. It is also held
14
that the Panchanama has not been questioned in any proceedings.
The relevant paras- 42 and 43 are reproduced herein below:-
“42. Mr. Chowdhary, learned senior counsel
contended that when a doubt arises about what the
Court intended then the same must be resolved by
construing the expressions inconsistent with the law. He
placed reliance on the following judgment of this Court:
1. Gajraj Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and
Ors. MANU/SC/0319/2001 :
2. Sarat Chandra Mishra and Ors. v. State of
Orissa and Ors. MANU/SC/0038/2006 : (2006) 1
SCC 638, 643 and
3. State of Haryana and Ors. v. M.P. Mohla
MANU/SC/8644/2006 : (2007) 1 SCC 457, 464On going through those decisions, we have no quarrel
over the ratio laid down, however, there is no scope of
applying them to the present case. As pointed out
earlier, the expression ‘civil appeals are allowed’ carry
only one meaning, i.e., the judgment of the High Court
is set aside and the writ petitions are dismissed.
Moreover, the determination of surplus land based on
the declaration of owners has become final long back.
The notifications issued under Section 10 of the Act and
the panchamana taken possession are also final. On
behalf of the State, it was asserted that the possession
of surplus land was taken on 20.07.1993 and the
Panchanama was executed showing that the
possession has been taken. It is signed by witnesses.
We have perused the details which are available in the
paper book. It is settled law that where possession is to
be taken of a large tract of land then it is permissible to
take possession by a properly executed Panchanama.
[vide Sita Ram Bhandar Society, New Delhi v.
Lieutenant Governor, Govt. of NCT, Delhi
MANU/SC/1699/2009 : (2009) 10 SCC 501]
43. It is not in dispute that the Panchanama has not
been questioned in any proceedings by any of the
appellants. Though it is stated that Chanakyapuri
Cooperative Society is in possession at one stage and
Shri Venkateshwar Enterprises was given possession
by the owners and possession was also given to Golden
Hill Construction Corporation and thereafter it was given
to the purchasers, the fact remains that the owners are
not in possession. In view of the same, the finding of the
High Court that the possession was taken by the State
15
legally and validity through a Panchanama is absolutely
correct and deserves to be upheld.”
16. In light of the judgments and facts of the case discussed above, the
findings can be summed up as under:-
A) The objection filed by the late Dr. Varial Das Jethani according to
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act, 1976 was not considered at
all by the Competent Authority.
B) The Notifications issued under the provisions of Sections 10(1)
and 10(3) of the Act, 1976 have not been placed on the record.
The petitioners moved an application under the Right to
Information Act, but it was informed that those documents were not
available which makes such publication of notifications doubtful.
C) No notice was issued to the petitioners under the provisions of
Section 10(5) of the Act, 1976 to surrender or deliver possession
and possession has not been taken over by the State Government
or the Competent Authority either according to provisions of
Section 10(5) or 10 (6) of the Act.
D) Interim order was passed in M.P. No. 2726/1986 dated 13.08.1987
and the possession of the petitioners was secured and the
petitioners are still in possession.
E) Though the proceedings under the provisions of the Act, 1976
were closed vide order dated 29.11.1984 but the petition i.e. M.P.
No. 2726/1986 filed by the late Dr. Varial Das Jethani remained
pending before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, it
cannot be said that the proceedings attained finality and further
vide interim order, the possession of the late Dr. Varial Das Jethani
was secured by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
F) The compensation was assessed by the Competent Authority and
part compensation was accepted by petitioner No.1, but later on, it
was refunded. The Competent Authority or the State Government
never objected to it.
G) A perusal of the order sheets would further show that there was
some miscalculation in the amount of compensation and again a
notice was issued to the petitioners to collect the compensation.
16
Petitioner No. 1 appeared before the Competent Authority and
moved an application for the stay of proceedings on the ground
that the writ petition is pending before the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh.
H) The Competent Authority in its order dated 11.12.2013 has not
demonstrated compliance with the provisions of Sections 10(5)
and 10(6) of the Act, 1976. It is also not established that
possession of the surplus land was taken over by the Competent
Authority or any person appointed on this behalf and, therefore,
the order passed by the Competent Authority dated 11.12.2013 is
not sustainable in the eyes of the law.
I) Petitioner No. 1 has not been afforded the sufficient opportunity of
hearing by the Competent Authority.
17. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petition is allowed. The
orders dated 11.01.1983, 11.12.2013 and all other orders passed by
respondent No. 3 are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
vatti
[ad_1]
Source link