Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High 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