IBC Moratorium Under Part III Does Not Shield Directors From Personal Criminal Liability In Cheque Bounce Cases U/S 138 NI: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act Is Predominantly Criminal; IBC Moratorium Stays Recovery Of Compensation But Not Prosecution: Supreme Court Refers To 3-Judge Bench Bus Driver Not Negligent If Vehicle Moved Based On Conductor's Whistle; Not Expected To Look Back For Alighting Passengers: Supreme Court Compassionate Assistance Received By Widow Cannot Be Deducted To Negate Compensation Payable To Dependent Mother Ineligible For Such Benefit: Supreme Court Section 37 Jurisdiction Is A Narrowing Pyramid; Courts Should Not Reopen Settled Jurisdictional Issues: Supreme Court Arbitration Award Passed Without Court Leave During Pendency Of Suit Is Unenforceable Under 1940 Act: Supreme Court Notice In Mutation Proceedings Constitutes Constructive Notice Of Probate; Revocation Plea Barred By Limitation: Supreme Court Breach Of Position Limits Is A Regulatory Infraction, Not Automatic Market Fraud; Supreme Court Sets Aside Reliance RPL Disgorgement Order Mere Breach Of Position Limits Not 'Fraud' Under PFUTP Regulations Unless Manipulation Or Inducement Is Proven: Supreme Court SC Awards ₹11 Lakh Compensation To Convict For 24-Day Delay In Release; Says State Must 'Obey First, Appeal Later' Compensation For Village Fazalwas Land Acquisition No Longer Res Integra; Supreme Court Dismisses Enhancement Claim Citing Previous Precedent Uncommunicated Adverse Remarks Cannot Form Basis To Terminate Probationer; Violates Natural Justice: Supreme Court Employer Cannot Use 'Unsatisfactory Performance' As Guise To Bypass Disciplinary Inquiry For Misconduct: Supreme Court Statutory Body Cannot Act As Both Investigator And Judge; Adjudicatory Process Must Be Neutrally Conducted: Supreme Court Removal Of Mathadhipati Vitiated If Relied-Upon Documents Not Supplied; Service By Affixation On Seized Premises Is A Legal Absurdity: Supreme Court Serving Notice By Affixing It To Door Of Premises Already Seized By State Is A Legal Absurdity: Supreme Court Initiating Criminal Case After Final Settlement Of Loan Account Is An Abuse Of Process; Sanctity Of OTS Must Be Protected: Supreme Court Criminal Prosecution Under Sections 420 & 471 IPC Cannot Continue After Bank Loan Settlement Approved By DRT: Supreme Court RTE Act: Use Of 'Teacher' In Section 23 Shows Intent To Make TET Mandatory For In-Service Staff, Not Retrospective: Supreme Court Service Of Teachers Cannot Come At Cost Of Educational Future Of Children: Supreme Court Extends TET Deadline To 2028 Right To Know Biological Father Prevails Over Right To Privacy; DNA Test Can Be Ordered To Resolve Paternity: Supreme Court DNA | Child’s Right To Identity & Closure Outweighs Putative Father’s Right To Privacy In Paternity Disputes: Supreme Court Approver’s Testimony Doesn’t Require Corroboration Of Every Material Circumstance; Rule Of Prudence Requires Only Connecting Link To Accused: Supreme Court Conspirator Liable For All 'Reasonably Foreseeable' Crimes Committed By Others In Furtherance Of Conspiracy: Supreme Court Rent Enhancement Orders Under UP Rent Act Must Apply Retrospectively From Date Of Filing Application: Supreme Court High Court Can’t Enhance Rent Under Article 227 Based On Mere Statements Without Evidence; Power To Be Exercised Sparingly: Supreme Court Parrot Testimony | Verbatim Repetition Of Allegations In Child's Statement Indicates Tutoring; POCSO Complaint Filed As 'Counter-Blast' Liable To Be Quashed: Supreme Court Matrimonial Disputes Often Witness Vague POCSO Allegations To Settle Personal Scores: Supreme Court Quashes Case Against Husband & In-Laws

Orders Post-1999 Urban Ceiling Repeal Rendered Ex-Facie Illegal; Respondents’ Rights Over Land Upheld:  High Court Dismisses State’s Appeal

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, led by Hon'ble Shri Justice Amar Nath (Kesharwani), dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh in a significant land ownership case in Bhopal. The Court upheld the trial court’s decision favoring the respondents, asserting their ownership and possession rights over the land, which was previously declared surplus under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976.

The judgment primarily addressed the legitimacy of the state’s actions regarding the land following the repeal of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976, and established the rights of the respondents over the disputed land.

The dispute emerged after the state challenged the trial court's judgment, which favored the respondents, Chetan Godani and another, claiming their ownership and possession of the land initially marked as surplus. The respondents maintained their continuous possession and ownership, contesting the state's claims following the 1999 repeal of the Act.

Invalidity of State Actions Post-Repeal: The Court determined that the state’s actions to claim the land after the repeal of the Urban Land Ceiling Act were legally baseless, confirming the trial court’s decision on the respondents' ownership and possession.

Revocation of Government Orders: The Court declared the state's post-repeal orders concerning the land as null and void, reiterating the respondents' rightful claim over the disputed property.

Examination of Ownership and Possession: In its detailed assessment, the Court scrutinized the chain of ownership, mutation records, and the legitimacy of state actions, concluding that the state never formally acquired possession, and the respondents had legal titles following the 1999 repeal.

References to Apex Court Judgments: The High Court cited several Supreme Court cases, such as 'State of U.P. Vs. Hari Ram (2013) 4 SCC 280' and 'State of U.P. and Another Vs. Ehsan and Another, 2023 SCC Online 1331', which played a crucial role in its deliberation over the respondents' legal standing and the inapplicability of the repealed Act.

Decision: The appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh was dismissed by the High Court, reaffirming the trial court’s decree in favor of the respondents. The judgment established that the respondents rightfully own and possess the disputed land, and the state’s actions post the 1999 repeal were deemed ineffective.

Date of Decision: 01/04/2024.

State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. Chetan Godani

 

Latest Legal News