STATE OF M.P. versus GHISILAL

Citation: [2021] 10 S.C.R. 1178 · Decided: 22-11-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. SUBHASH REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1178
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
   [2021] 10 S.C.R. 1178
1178
STATE OF M.P.
v.
GHISILAL
(Civil Appeal No. 2153 of 2012)
NOVEMBER 22, 2021
[R. SUBHASH REDDY AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976: ss. 10(1),
(3) – Land in the urban agglomeration – Declaration of surplus
land – Jurisdiction of civil court – Held: In view of provisions of
appeal, revision before the designated appellate and revisional
authorities available for aggrieved parties under the Act, the
jurisdiction of the civil courts to try suit relating to land which is
subject-matter of ceiling proceedings, stands excluded by implication
– Civil court cannot declare, orders passed by the authorities under
the Act as illegal or non est – On facts, orders passed by the
competent authorities, that the original declarant was holding excess
land and the consequential notifications issued u/s. 10(1), (3) have
become final, it was not open for the respondent to file a suit seeking
declaration – Trial court erred in entertaining the suit, as filed by
the respondent and even the first appellate court and second
appellate court have not considered the various grounds raised by
the appellant in proper perspective – Thus, the order passed by the
trial court as upheld by the appellate court, set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The land in question is in the Urban
Agglomeration and covered by the Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act, 1976. As such, original owner late PS had filed
declaration under the provisions of the ULC Act and after
conducting necessary inquiry, final orders were passed by the
competent authority declaring 16000.32 square meters of land
as surplus land. It is also clear from the material placed on record
that consequent to final orders passed by the competent authority,
notifications under Section 10(1) and 10(3) of the ULC Act were
issued. Although, it is the case of the respondent - plaintiff that
possession was taken without issuing notice, as such it cannot
be considered as valid taking over of possession, but it is evident
from the copy of the panchnama, the respondent, who claims to
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1179
be the legal heir of late PS, is also a signatory as a witness to the
same. Though the respondent - plaintiff was a witness to the
panchnama for taking over possession, a belated attempt was
made by filing the present suit by the respondent without even
questioning the orders passed by the competent authority under
the Act, declaring the land in question as a surplus land. The trial
court as well as appellate court fell in error in recording a finding
that possession was not taken, inspite of taking possession by
conducting panchnama for which respondent is a signatory. In
view of the stand of the appellant, of taking over possession of
the land by conducting panchnama for which respondent is a
signatory, it is difficult to believe the stand of the respondent
that possession was not taken. In view of the stand of the
respondent that possession is with the respondent, this Court
called for a report from the District Judge. Pursuant to the same,
report dated 14.04.2021 was sent by the Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh to this Court. It is
evident from such report that the appellant has taken possession
of the land and the same was allotted to the Bhopal Development
Authority and the same was utilised for construction of about
400 houses for needy slum dwellers by spending huge amount.
Thus, it is clear that possession of the land was not only taken
but same is utilised for a public purpose. [Para 13][1184-F-G;
1085-A-F]
1.2 The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is
a self-contained Code. Various provisions of the Act make it clear
that if any orders are passed by the competent authority, there is
provision for appeal, revision before the designated appellate
and revisional authorities. In view of such remedies available for
aggrieved parties, the jurisdiction of the civil courts to try suit
relating to land which is subject-matter of ceiling proceedings,
stands excluded by implication. Civil court cannot declare, orders
passed by the authorities under the ULC Act, as illegal or non
est. More so, when such orders have become final, no declaration
could have been granted by the civil court. [Para 14][1185-F-H;
1186-A]
1.3 It is clear from the orders passed by the competent
authorities, that the original declarant was holding excess

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