Petitioners m TE HIGH COUM OF JUDICATEEE OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUB. g Writ Petition No.,__gqg _ H of 97. L. Ramanuj shama aged 56 years, son of Shr‘i Gajanand Shanna Gceupation Junior Executive in Bhilai Steel Plant resident of Sikola Basti District Burg. 2.’ Ramesh Kumar aged 5Q years, son of Shri Gajnandvsharma, Occupation Chargeman in Balco, Korba, district Bilaspu; (M.P) 3. Kamlesh Kumar Shama, aged about 4S years, son of Shri Gajanand shame, Occupation Acceunts Officer 1n Balco, Korba District Bilaspur (M.P) Narehh Kumar Shame, aged about 46 years, son af Shri Gajanand Shame, E-Semor Foreman, Bhilai Steel Plant Sector 3,Bhila1. Bhupendra Kumar Sherma, aged about 44 years, son of Shri Gajanand Shame, 9ccupation Assistant Foreaan in BALCO, Korba éistriet Bilaspur M.F. Smt.Dayawati Bai, aged about 80 years, wi ow ef late Shri Gajanand Shame, House wife, resident of Sixela Basti, Burg. (a) Smt.Kamsha1ya Bai, agedfaboutes years, widow of late Shri Ram Nihal Shanna, hosue wife, resident of Sixola Basti, district Burg. (b) Sitendra Kumar aged 26 years, son of Shri Raw Nihal, Govt.Serv1ce,v resident of Sikola Basti, district Burg. (e) m.Chetana, aged 24 years, daughter of smi Ram Niha shame. (d) Ku.Kinita, aged about 2O years,daughter of, v Skmi Ramrr Nihal Sherma, resident of Sikolabasti district Darg. .Sweta aged about 18 years, daughter of Shri Ram Nihal Shanna, resident of SiKo’la Basti, district Durg' (ELF) ' r 2 l H IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASP WRIT PETITION NO. 2858 OF 1989 Smt. Purnima Dani & Others Petitioners Versus Respondents The State Govt. of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) & Others Petitioners WRIT BETITION NO. 2186 OF 1997 Dwarkanath Dewangan (since died) through his legal representatives : Ambika Prasad Dewangan & Others State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) & Others Versus Respondents Petitioners WRIT PETITION NO. 3424 OF 1997 Ramanuj Sharma & Others K Versus Respondents State of M.P. (Now C.G.) & Others WRIT PETITION NO. 1844 OF 1998 Petitioner Respondents Ramswaroop Versus Competent Authority & Others Petitioner WRIT PETITION NO. 1198 OF 2000 Bhagwat Rao Versus Respondents The State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) & Others WRIT PETITION NO. 1803 OF 2000 Shyamlal & Others Petitioners Versus Respondents ‘ The State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) & Others UR mWmm~nm; WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION, OF INDIA (SB : Hon’ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) d Present:- Shri H.B.Agrawal,'Sr. Advocate with Ms. Itu Rani Das, Shri Abhishek Sinha, Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Shri Anand Dadariya and Shri Ashish Surana, Advocates I for the respective petitioners. Shri V.V.S.Murthy, Dy. Advocate General for the State. Shri Ashish Shrivastava and Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocates for the respective respondents. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 19‘ day of October. 2010) 1. In this bunch of petitions namely W.P.Nos. 2858 of 1989, 2186 of 1997, 3424 of 1997, 1844 of 1998, 1198 of 2000 and 1803 Of 2000, the petitioners have questioned the Iegality and validity of the orders passed by the authorities under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short “Ceiling Act”). The Act was repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (for short “the Act, 1999"), which was published inMadhya Pradesh Gazette on 10‘” March, 2000. 2. Section 3 of the Act, 1999 provides that the repeal of the principal Act i.e. Ceiling Act shall not affect the vesting of any vacant land under sub—section.(3) of section 10, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorized by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority. 3. Section 4 of the Act, 1999 clearly provides that all proceedings relating to any order made or purported to be made under the principal Act pending immediately before the commencement of K .v /\ this Act, before any court. tribunal or other authority shall abate; provided that this Section shall not apply to the proceedings ; twg- relating to sections 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the principal Act i.e. Ceiling Act, in so far as such proceedings are relatable ‘to the land, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government or any person duiy authorized by the State , Government in this behalf or by the competent authority. There is a dispute-with regard to possession of land in dispute asto whether the séme have been acquired under the provisions of Section 10 (3) of the Ceiling Act,before the Act, 1999 was published on 10‘“ March,‘2ooo. The petitioners have not produced relevant documents to establish that the provisions of Section 10 (3) of the Ceiling Act, was not exercised before 10‘“ March, 2000, except the oral submissions that the provisions of section 10 (3) of the Ceiling Act was not exercised and the land in question was not acquired by the respondents-State and other authorities before 10‘“ March, 2000. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents categorically submit that the provisions of Section 10 (3) of the Ceiling Act has been exercised prior to 10‘“ March, 2000, when Act, 1999 came into force. Thus, the petitioners cannot take advantage of Section 4 of the Act, 1999. The Supreme Court in Pt. Madan Swaroop Shrotiya Public Charitable Trust v. State of U.P. and others’ observed that if the possession over the land had not been taken over by the State, the proceedings under Ceiling Act, 1976 shall abate. However, if the possession continued to be with the land holders, Section 4 of the Act, 1999 would not be applicable. §CC 325 / ,/ ,/ i : \ \ \ Sub section (3) of Section 1070f the Ceiling Act provides that at any time after the publication of the‘ notificationq 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, auch land shall be deemed to have vested‘ absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances with effect from the date so. specified. The action taken under sub-section (3) of section '10 of the Ceiling Act has been saved under the Act, 1999. Thus, if upon the publication of notification i the land was deemed to have been acquired by the State Government and upon publication of such declaration, the same would not stand abated under provisions of‘Section 4 of the Act, 1999. The Supreme Court, in Sulochana Chandrakant Ga/ande v. Pune Municipal Transport & Others2, observed as under: “36. Undoubtedly, the 1976 Act, stood repealed by the 1999 Act. However, it has no bearing on this case for the reason that proceeding pending in any court ‘releriting to the 1976 Act, stood abated, provided he possession of the land had not been taken fro 1 the owner. Therefore, in a case, where the poss ‘ssion has been taken, the repeal of the Act woul ‘ not confer any benefit on the owner of the land. (Vide Pt. Madan Swaroop Shrotiya Public Charitable Trust v. State of U.P., Ghasitey Lal Sahu v. Competent Authority and Mukarram Ali Khan v. State of U.P.)." iI—x ‘ ‘s scc 467 l . In the case on hand, the pe’titioners’ case is that they continued to be in possession. However, contrary to that the State and other authorities have fiied an affidavit to the effect that the possession of the Iand in question had already been taken over. Without .going intc.) the disputed question of facts, Iiberty is reserved to the petitioners to make proper appiication before the competent-authority to decide the issue with regard to the. possession. of the land. If the-land in question have been acquired by' the State respqmdents‘and‘other authorities in exercise of provisions of Section 10(3) of the Ceiling Act, before 10th March, 2000. The acquisition and possession by the State Government consequent thereupon issaved under the provisions 0f Section 3 of the Act, 1999. In view of the above, the petitions stand disposed of. No order asto costs; The competent authority shall do the needful as early as possible preferably within a period of 2 weeks form the date of receipt of an application made by the petitioners, if so advised./ Satish K- Sdl- A9“'“°" ‘ i - Judg? / As'hok