Supreme Court Orders Fresh Investigation in Case of Alleged Property Dispute and Fraud; Transfer Petition Disposed    |     Vague Allegations of Improper Cross-Examination Insufficient for Recalling Witnesses: Supreme Court Upholds High Court Order    |     Honorable Acquittal in Criminal Proceedings Invalidates the Dismissal Based on Identical Allegations: Allahabad HC    |     Supreme Court Orders Fresh Selection for Punjab Laboratory Attendants; Eliminates Rural Area Marks    |     Entire Story of the Prosecution is a Piece of Fabrication: Supreme Court Acquits Accused in High-Profile Kidnapping Case    |     Madras High Court Overstepped in Directing Framing of Charges, Says Supreme Court; Stays Proceedings    |     Foreclosing Right to File Written Statement Without Serving Complaint Too Harsh: Supreme Court    |     Supreme Court Reduces Sentence in Rash Driving Case; Compensation Reduced Due to Age and Health Factors    |     Prayers for Setting Aside Maintenance Order and Refund Not Maintainable Under Section 25(2) of Domestic Violence Act: Supreme Court    |     Supreme Court Grants Bail to Accused on Grounds of Parity with Co-Accused and Prolonged Custody    |     Serious allegations of corruption demand thorough investigation Against Karnataka Bar Council Chairman:  Karnataka HC Refuses to Quash FIR    |     Probationers must be heard; a punitive action without inquiry is against natural justice: Punjab & Haryana HC Reinstates Judicial Officer    |     Refining Crude Soybean Oil is a Use of Goods Within the State, Attracting Entry Tax: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Arbitral Awards Cannot Be Overturned for Merely Better Views: Supreme Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Dismisses Appeals Over Encroachment Claims Due to Improper Demarcation Report    |     Teasing by Children Cannot Be Considered Grave and Sudden Provocation Under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC: Gauhati High Court Upholds Life Sentence for Man Convicted of Murdering a 7-Year-Old Boy    |     ITC Blocking Under Rule 86A Cannot Exceed Available Balance in Electronic Credit Ledger: Delhi HC    |     Writ under Article 226 not maintainable when alternative remedies are available" – Delhi HC: Delhi HC Dismisses Writ Petition for FIR and Protection    |     Lack of Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Does Not Automatically Vitiate Proceedings: Calcutta HC    |     No Development Without Conveyance: Statutory Rights of Housing Society Prevail: Bombay High Court    |     Pecuniary Jurisdiction Based on Highest Valued Relief in Specific Performance Suit: Andhra Pradesh HC    |     Delay in Sale Deed Registration After Full Payment Cannot Justify Denial of Auctioned Property: Andhra Pradesh HC    |     Civil Judge Lacked Jurisdiction to Hear Suit Under Section 92 CPC; District Court is the Competent Forum: Allahabad High Court    |     Children are not only the assets of the parents but also of society: Kerala HC on Protests Involving Minors    |     A cheque issued as security does not represent a legally enforceable debt: Madras HC Acquits Accused in Cheque Bounce Case    |    

Writ Petition Allowed, Impugned Order Quashed: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Farmers' Right to Land

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgement that promises to have far-reaching implications, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled in favor of agriculturists, quashing an earlier order that took away their land possession under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act of 1976.

Presiding over the case was Hon'ble Shri Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, who delivered the verdict on the 3rd of October, 2023. The petitioners, Gulab Chand, Phool Chand, Sanjay, and Renu, had originally filed a writ petition challenging the legality of the paper possession proceedings undertaken by the Commissioner, Revenue Division District Ujjain.

Justice Shukla noted in his judgement, "In light of the above, the present petition is allowed. The order dated 11.09.2019 passed by the Single Bench is restored." This ruling is seen as a significant win for the rights of farmers and landowners in the state.

The legal battle had seen several twists and turns, with the case reaching even the Apex Court. The initial writ petition, which was allowed by a single bench, was set aside by a Division Bench on appeal by the State. However, the Apex Court later upheld the initial order, and a review petition filed by the State of MP was also dismissed.

"Petitioners are entitled to get the benefit of the Repeal Act, 1999 and are entitled to get their names mutated in the revenue records," Justice Shukla added. The ruling restores the status of the petitioners as rightful landowners and puts a decisive end to the legal tussle that had been going on for years.

In the case, the petitioners were represented by Advocate Vijay Kumar Asudani, while the State was represented by Panel Lawyer Kratik Mandloi.

Date of Decision: 03 OCTOBER, 2023

GULAB CHAND vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Gulab_Chand_vs_The_State_Of_Madhya_Pradesh-03_October_2023.pdf"]

Similar News