http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1529 of 2000

PETITIONER: KISHAN LAL

RESPONDENT: STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.                                       

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/02/2005

BENCH: B.P. SINGH & ARUN KUMAR

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

( With office report )

Date: 22/02/2005  This Appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :         HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. SINGH         HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR

For Appellant(s)                         Mr. A.K. Sanghi,Adv.

For Respondent(s)       Mr.Mohit Singh, Adv. St.of M.P.              Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri,Adv.

          UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following                                J U D G M E N T          The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed judgment.         NON-REPORTABLE.

                (Sheetal Dhingra) Court Master

(Vijay Dhawan) Court Master                 [Signed judgment is placed on the file] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL  APPEAL No.1529 OF 2000

KISHAN LAL                                          Appellant (s)

                       VERSUS

STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.                              Respondent(s)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

B.P. SINGH,J.                   Heard counsel for the parties.         This appeal by special leave has been preferred by the appellant against the  judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur dated 23rd June, 1999  passed in writ petition No.2604/99.  By the aforesaid judgment and order the High Court  dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant and affirmed the orders passed by the   authorities under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 holding that the appeal  preferred by the appellant before the Commissioner Jabalpur Division being an appeal under  Section 33 of the aforesaid Act was barred by time.         It is submitted before us that the Parliament enacted the Urban Land (Ceiling and  Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (Act No.45/99) which received the assent of the President on 22 nd  March, 1999 but which is deemed to have come into force in the States of Haryana and Punjab  and in all the Union territories on the 11th day of January, 1999 and in any other State whi ch  adopts this Act under clause (2) of Article 252 of the Constitution of India on the date of  such  adoption.  It is the further submission of counsel for the appellant on the basis of the not ification  produced before us dated 9th March, 2000, that in exercise of the power conferred under clau se  (2) of Article 252 of the Constitution of India,  the said Act has been adopted by the State  of  Madhya Pradesh by a resolution which was notified in the Gazette on 9th March, 2000, and  which specifies 17th February, 2000 as the date with effect from which the said resolution  operates.         We have perused the aforesaid Repeal Act of 1999 which has been adopted by the  State of Madhya Pradesh and we find that under Section 3 the repeal of the principal Act doe s  not affect the vesting of any vacant land under sub-Section (3) of Section 10, possession of  which  has been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorised by the State  Government in this behalf or by the competent authority.  There are some other provisions in   the said Section which are relevant in deciding the question as to whether the repeal shall  affect  such vesting.  Sub-Section (4) of Section 3 provides that all proceedings relating to any or der  made or purported to be made under the principal Act pending immediately before the  commencement of this Act, before any court, tribunal or other authority shall abate.  The  proviso to the said sub-Section is not relevant for the disposal of this appeal.         Counsel for the appellant submits that possession of the land has never been taken  by the State or any person authorised by the State.  On the other hand, counsel for the Stat e  submits that possession has been taken and as a result thereof the land vests in the State o f  Madhya Pradesh and is unaffected by the Repeal Act.         It is not necessary for us to make an inquiry as to whether the assertion of the  appellant is correct or whether the denial by the State is justified.   There is no material  before  us on the basis of which we can record a finding whether the possession of the land has been   taken over from the appellant.  Hence, for want of relevant material, we cannot go into this   question and it is only appropriate that the matter be remitted to the High Court for a deci sion  in accordance with law after giving to the parties opportunity of placing their respective c ases  before the High Court.  We are also not expressing any opinion  on the question as to whethe r  sub-Section (4) of Section 3 will apply to the facts of this case in view of the fact that t his appeal

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

was pending before this Court when the Repeal Act came into force.  That is a matter which m ay  also be considered by the High Court.           We, therefore, remit this matter to the High Court to consider the aforesaid  questions which arise in this appeal on account of passing of the Repeal Act of 1999 which h as  been adopted by the State of Madhya Pradesh.          The High Court will give opportunity to the parties to place material on record, on  the basis of which the High Court may give its decision.         The appeal is disposed of accordingly.