Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation Case

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

 

Similar News