Case: BAJRANGA (Dead) by LRs Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH &amp; ORS

has to be on the basis of information given in the return under Section 9 of the said Act, or the information obtained by the competent authority under Section 10 of the said Act after making an enquiry. In terms of Section 11(3), the draft statement is to be published and served on the holder, the creditor and all other persons interested in the land to which it relates. Once a disclosure is there that Jenobai had filed a suit, there has to be mandatorily a notice to her as otherwise any decision would be behind her back and would, thus, violate the principles of natural justice. 23. There is little ambiguity about the aforesaid position as 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. 24. In our view, the embargo came there and then as once the disclosure was made the proceedings should have been kept in abeyance to await the decision in those proceedings. The occasion to pass orders under sub-section (5) and sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the said Act did not arise in the present case as in view of the disclosure of Jenobais suit. Further proceedings should have been kept in abeyance to await the verdict in the suit as per proviso to sub-section (4) and notice should have been issued to Jenobai. All this has been observed to be in breach by the respondents herein. We are, thus, of the view that the findings of the appellate court in constructions of these provisions reflects the correct position of law in the given facts of the case. 25. The issue of jurisdiction of civil court is no more res integra in view of the judgment in Competent Authority, Tarana District, Ujjain (M.P.). where it has been observed in para 4 as under: 4. So far as the other question regarding the maintainability of the suit in a civil court is concerned, suffice to say that sub-section (5) of Section 11 of the Act itself provides that any party may within three months from the date of any order passed by the Competent Authority under sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act institute a suit in the civil court to have the order set aside. Thus the above provision itself permits the filing of a suit in a civil court and any decision of such court has been made binding on the Competent Authority under the above provision of sub-section (5) of Section 11 of the Act. It is not in dispute that the suit in the present case was filed within three months as provided under sub-section (5) of Section 11 of the Act. In the result, we do not find any force in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 26. We have taken note of the latter proceedings of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Dungaji (Dead) Represented by Legal Representatives & Anr. discussing the scheme of the Act and the requirement of taking recourse to the provisions of appeal and revision under the said Act. 27. We have also considered the plea of limitation advanced by learned counsel for the respondents albeit no specific issue being framed in respect of the same. 28. In our view the legal position has to be appreciated in the factual context. Thus, though there may be a process provided for redressal under the scheme of the Act, it is this very scheme of the Act which has been breached by the respondents herein in not complying with the statutory provisions. It can be nobodys say that Jenobai cannot file a title suit against the appellant. That suit being maintainable and pending, and the factum of that suit being disclosed in the return (if the nature of disclosure being the reason we wanted to peruse the record, which were not made available), the provisions of Section 11 had to be strictly complied with. 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. 29. 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 subsection 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.

Court's decision (1 = petition accepted / positive for appellant, 0 = rejected / negative): 1

Reasoning from the judgment:
1[ds]19. We have given a thought to the matter in the conspectus of what has been urged before us on the different dates and the proceedings that had been recorded. The matter was taken up on 16.1.2020 and in view of the submissions advanced by the parties, the Court required perusal of the record. Thus, in the proceedings it was recorded that there was a factual controversy as to whether the appellant in pursuance of the draft statement in the objections filed had given the particulars of the pending civil suit filed by the mother-in-law of the appellant claiming part of the land held by the appellant. This was considered to be relevant as in terms of Section 9(iv) of the said Act such particulars are mandated to be given and, thus, the respondents herein being in breach or not of the other succeeding provisions of the Act would depend on this important aspect. We also took note of the fact that as per the respondents herein no particulars had been given and the suit was alleged to be collusive. In order to determine the question it was opined that this Court found it necessary to peruse the objections filed by the appellant to come to a conclusion.20. On the said date itself, this Court also required the pleadings in the civil suit filed by the mother-in-law, Jenobai, to be placed on record as also the judgment.21. The appellant complied with the order dated 16.1.2020 by filing these additional documents but the respondents herein did not do the needful. It is in these circumstances that on 9.9.2020 this Court made it clear that in case the records are not filed adverse inference will be drawn. The natural sequitur to this is that the failure to place the aforementioned documents on record shows that there had been proper disclosure about the suit in the return filed under Section 9 of the said Act. The factum of disclosure of the suit could not really be doubted by the respondents herein in view of their own pleadings (admitted in the pleadings before the trial court, as perused by us). However, the records are alleged not to have been located.The preparation of the statement of land held in excess of ceiling limit under Section 11 of the said Act has to be on the basis of information given in the return under Section 9 of the said Act, or the information obtained by the competent authority under Section 10 of the said Act after making an enquiry. In terms of Section 11(3), the draft statement is to be published and served on the holder, the creditor and all other persons interested in the land to which it relates. Once a disclosure is there that Jenobai had filed a suit, there has to be mandatorily a notice to her as otherwise any decision would be behind her back and would, thus, violate the principles of natural justice.23. There is little ambiguity about the aforesaid position as 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.24. In our view, the embargo came there and then as once the disclosure was made the proceedings should have been kept in abeyance to await the decision in those proceedings. The occasion to pass orders under sub-section (5) and sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the said Act did not arise in the present case as in view of the disclosure of Jenobais suit. Further proceedings should have been kept in abeyance to await the verdict in the suit as per proviso to sub-section (4) and notice should have been issued to Jenobai. All this has been observed to be in breach by the respondents herein. We are, thus, of the view that the findings of the appellate court in constructions of these provisions reflects the correct position of law in the given facts of the case.25. The issue of jurisdiction of civil court is no more res integra in view of the judgment in Competent Authority, Tarana District, Ujjain (M.P.). where it has been observed in para 4 as under:4. So far as the other question regarding the maintainability of the suit in a civil court is concerned, suffice to say that sub-section (5) of Section 11 of the Act itself provides that any party may within three months from the date of any order passed by the Competent Authority under sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act institute a suit in the civil court to have the order set aside. Thus the above provision itself permits the filing of a suit in a civil court and any decision of such court has been made binding on the Competent Authority under the above provision of sub-section (5) of Section 11 of the Act. It is not in dispute that the suit in the present case was filed within three months as provided under sub-section (5) of Section 11 of the Act. In the result, we do not find any force in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.26. We have taken note of the latter proceedings of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Dungaji (Dead) Represented by Legal Representatives & Anr. discussing the scheme of the Act and the requirement of taking recourse to the provisions of appeal and revision under the said Act.27. We have also considered the plea of limitation advanced by learned counsel for the respondents albeit no specific issue being framed in respect of the same.28. In our view the legal position has to be appreciated in the factual context. Thus, though there may be a process provided for redressal under the scheme of the Act, it is this very scheme of the Act which has been breached by the respondents herein in not complying with the statutory provisions. It can be nobodys say that Jenobai cannot file a title suit against the appellant. That suit being maintainable and pending, and the factum of that suit being disclosed in the return (if the nature of disclosure being the reason we wanted to peruse the record, which were not made available), the provisions of Section 11 had to be strictly complied with. 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.29. 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 subsection 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.