Supreme Court docket: The three-judge Bench comprising of Sanjay Kishan Kaul*, Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ., has put aside the impugned order of Excessive Court docket of judicature at Madhya Pradesh, whereby the Excessive Court docket had upheld taking up of possession and eviction beneath MP Land Income Code, 1959.
The predecessors of the appellant was bhumiswami of agricultural dry land measuring 64.438 acres located in Village Bagadua, MP, which was in extra of the ceiling restrict prescribed as per S. 7(b) of MP Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960, whereby the prescribed restrict was set at 54 acres. Due to this fact, the competent authority had initiated the method to amass the excess land. In furtherance of the aforesaid, the State had initiated the method of taking up possession and eviction beneath Part 248 of the MP Land Income Code, 1959. The appellant, being aggrieved filed a go well with for declaration of title and everlasting injunction earlier than the Trial Court docket. The appellant contended that the proceedings have been unlawful as he was really left with solely 54 acres of land which was throughout the prescribed ceiling restrict in view of the truth that the land measuring 17 bighas and seven biswa had been decreed in favour of 1 Jenobai, who was in possession by cultivation for about 20 years.
Reading:: Right to property is included in article
The Trial Court docket had held that the appellant was the unique bhumiswami and the go well with with Jenobai was collusive as she was the mother-in-law of the appellant and the endeavour was to forestall the excess land from being acquired by the State. The appellant filed an attraction earlier than First Appellate Court docket , which was allowed and the judgment of the trial courtroom was put aside on the bottom that the competent authority had did not adjust to the statutory provisions beneath Part 11(3) and 11(4) of the stated Act. Nonetheless, the stated judgment was put aside by the Excessive Court docket noticing that no info was acknowledged to have been offered to the competent authority giving particulars of the go well with of Jenobai. The competent authority was held to not be at fault within the alleged breach of Sections 11(3) and 11(4) of the Act, 1960 as the data germane for a similar had not been disclosed.
Remark and Evaluation
Whether or not the requirement of S. 9 of the Act, 1960 had been fulfilled?
To determine this concern the Court docket had directed each the events to submit sure information earlier than it, nevertheless, the State had did not adjust to the identical. Due to this fact, it was held that failure to put the aforementioned paperwork on file confirmed that there had been correct disclosure concerning the go well with within the return filed beneath Part 9. The truth that the respondent had pleaded the go well with in query to be collusive was additionally thought of to be a proof that the particulars of the pending civil go well with filed by the mother-in-law of the appellant claiming a part of the land held by the appellant have been submitted earlier than the respondent.
Whether or not acquiring of possession was in line with the process established by regulation?
In line with Part 11(3) of the Act, 1960 the draft assertion needed to be printed and served on the holder and “all different individuals within the land to which it relates.” As soon as a disclosure was there that Jenobai had filed a go well with, there needed to be mandatorily a discover to her, as in any other case any choice can be behind her again and would, thus, violate the ideas of pure justice. The Bench noticed the proviso to 11(4), which clarified that, in case the competent authority finds that any query has arisen relating to the title of a specific holder, which is already pending for choice earlier than the competent courtroom, the competent authority shall await the choice of the courtroom. Therefore, the Court docket held that proceedings ought to have been saved in abeyance to await the decision within the go well with and spot ought to have been issued to Jenobai. The Bench expressed,
“Proper to property continues to be a constitutional proper beneath Article 300A of the Structure of India although not a elementary proper. The deprivation of the suitable can solely be in accordance with the process established by regulation.”
The regulation on this case was the stated Act. Thus, the provisions of the stated Act needed to be complied with to deprive an individual of the land being surplus. It was additional acknowledged that, as soon as a disclosure was made, the matter needed to be handled beneath sub-section (4) of Part 11 of the stated Act and in view of the pending go well with proceedings between the appellant and Jenobai, the proviso got here into play which required the respondent authorities to await the choice of the courtroom. Sub-section 5 and thereafter sub-section 6 would kick in solely after the mandate of subsection 4 was fulfilled.
Although there could also be a course of offered for redressal beneath the scheme of the Act, it’s this very scheme of the Act which has been breached by the respondents herein in not complying with the statutory provisions.
Whether or not Jurisdiction of Civil Court docket is barred?
Concerning the problem of jurisdiction of civil courtroom the Bench analysed Part 46 of the Act, 1960, which reads as beneath:
“46. Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts. – Save as expressly offered on this Act, no Civil Court docket shall have any jurisdiction to settle, determine or cope with any query which is by or beneath this Act required to be settled, determined or handled by the competent authority.”
Noticing that Part 46 begins with a saving clause qua the bar of civil courtroom – “Save as expressly offered on this Act…..” the Bench held that, provisions of Part 46 have been expressly subjected to the provisions of Part 11(5). Reliance was positioned on Competent Authority, Tarana District, Ujjain (M.P.) v. Vijay Gupta, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 631, by the Bench, whereby, whereas deciding the query of jurisdiction of Civil Court docket, the Court docket had expressed,
“As far as the opposite query relating to the maintainability of the go well with in a civil courtroom is worried, suffice to say that sub-section (5) of Part 11 of the Act itself supplies that any get together could inside three months from the date of any order handed by the Competent Authority beneath sub-section (4) of Part 11 of the Act institute a go well with within the civil courtroom to have the order put aside. Thus the above provision itself permits the submitting of a go well with in a civil courtroom and any choice of such courtroom has been made binding on the Competent Authority beneath the above provision of sub-section (5) of Part 11 of the Act. It’s not in dispute that the go well with within the current case was filed inside three months as offered beneath sub-section (5) of Part 11 of the Act. Within the consequence, we don’t discover any drive on this attraction and it’s accordingly dismissed with no order as to prices.”
Contemplating the above talked about, the Bench held that when there was no surplus land there might be no query of any proceedings for take over of the excess land beneath the stated Act. Therefore, the impugned order was set and the order of the primary appellate courtroom was restored. [Bajranga v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 27, decided on 19-01-2021]
*Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul has penned this judgment
Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has put this story collectively
Read more:: How Do I Add One other Proprietor to My LLC?