Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court 'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme Court

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"]

Latest Legal News