G H BAJRANGA (DEAD) BY LRS. versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 1 S.C.R. 130 · Decided: 19-01-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
130
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
BAJRANGA (DEAD) BY LRS.
v.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6209 of 2010)
JANUARY 19, 2021
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, DINESH MAHESHWARI AND
HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960
– s.11(3) and s.11(4) – Surplus land under the Act – Predecessor-
in-interest of appellant was bhumiswami of agricultural dry land –
He was stated to be holding land in excess of the prescribed ceiling
limit – Such excess land declared to be surplus land, whereafter,
respondents initiated proceedings for taking over possession and
eviction u/s.248 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code –
Appellant filed suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction
contending that the land recovery proceedings were illegal since
he was actually left with land within the prescribed ceiling limit
since a part of the land had been decreed in favour of his mother-
in-law, ‘J’, after she filed a civil suit against him – Suit of appellant
dismissed by trial court – First Appellate Court however held that
the competent authority had failed to comply with the statutory
provisions u/s.11(3) and s.11(4) and restrained the respondents from
interfering with possession of such land – High Court set aside the
judgment of Appellate Court – On appeal, held: Right to property
is still a constitutional right under Art.300A of the Constitution
though not a fundamental right – Deprivation of the right can only
be in accordance with the procedure established by law – On facts,
once a disclosure was made (that ‘J’ had filed a suit against
appellant), the matter had to be dealt with under sub-section (4) of
s.11 and in view of the pending suit proceedings between appellant
and ‘J’, the proviso to sub-section (4) of s.11 came into play which
required the respondent authorities to await the decision of the court
– However, the very scheme of the Act was breached by the
respondents in not complying with the statutory provisions – Even
notice was not issued to ‘J’ – She could have clarified the position
further – The effect of the decree in favour of ‘J’ is that the appellant
   [2021] 1 S.C.R. 130
130
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
131
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 takeover of the surplus land under
the Act – Judgment of first Appellate Court accordingly restored –
Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 – s.248.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. The factual matrix of the instant case is to be
examined in the context of the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh
Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960. 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 ‘J’ 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. [Para 22][141-B-D]
2. 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. [Para 23][141-D-F]
3. 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
BAJRANGA (DEAD) BY LRS. v. THE STATE OF MADHYA
PRADESH & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.