Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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