1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard.

2. The instant writ petition under Article 226 226/227 of the Constitution of India claims following reliefs:-

          "(i). That the order annexure P/1 be held to be not enforceable in view of enforcement of the Repeal Act as possession has not been taken away and the entire proceedings under Act 1976 may be quashed by virtue of operation of Repeal Act.

          (ii). If it is held that there was a valid vesting of land under Ceiling Act, in that case, the respondents be directed to pay compensation under Section 11 with interest @ 12% p.a. from date of order annexure P/1 till ll payment.

          (iii). Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case doing justice in the matter including costs be also awarded."

3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are as under:-

          3.1. The proceedings in in respect of land bearing Survey No.470/1 situated situate at Purani Chhawani, Gwalior Gwalior, under the provision of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)) Act, 197 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the the Act of 1976") were initiated against the original owner namely late Shri Lal Singh Kushwaha and an order dated 17.03.19 17.03.1983 (Annexure nnexure P/1) was passed by the Competent C Authority, uthority, whereby 5928.85 squa square meters of land was declared surplus.

          Thereafter, the proceedings under Sect Sections 10 (1), 10 (3) and 10 (5) of the Act of 1976 were said to be undertaken by the respondents, and in terms of Section 10 (6), the ex-parte parte possession of land was taken by the respondents on 21.12.1989. It has been contended by the petitioners petitioner that since possession of land is still with them, th , therefore the proceedings stood abated after enforcement of the Repeal Act; hence, the present petition is filed for reliefs as stated hereinabove.

4. Learned counsels counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are the legal heirs of late Shri Lal Singh Kushwaha and are still in possession in land in question. They submit that the notice under Section 10 (5) of the Act of 1976 was never served on late Shri Lal Singh Kushwaha and possession of the land in question was never taken over from the original landholder. The respondents authorities have only prepared the documents for taking over the possession which is nothing but a paper possession of land in question. They further submit that records rds do not reflect taking over forceful possession of land by issuing notice in terms of Section 10 (6) of the Act of 1976. They further submit that even if for the sake of arguments, it is accepted that due possession of the land was taken over from the original o landholder, then also, till date the compensation has not been paid and therefore, now by virtue of enforcement of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Repeal act of 1999) as adopted in the State of Madhya Pradesh with effect from 17.02.2000, the he petitioners are entitled to retain the possession of the land in question, and the entire proceedings deserve to be quashed for non- non compliance of the provision of the Act of 1976 an and accordingly revenue records deserve to be corrected corrected.

5. In support of their contentions, learned counsels appearing for the petitioners places reliance upon the following the judgments delivered by this Court as well as the Apex Court Court:

          "Kishanlal and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others ( W.A.No.128/2007, decided on 28.09.2016);

          Sunil Bhadoria vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others others,, (Writ No.6175/2012, decided on 05.01.2015);

          State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.vs. Thamman Chand Koshta, Koshta ( W.A.No.867/2015 , decide on 06.07.2017);

          State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Hari Ram ( 2013 (4) SCC 280);

          Smt. Rambai and Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, Another (Writ Petition No.4801/2006, No. decided on 20.12.2023, Bhagwan Das Died Through LRS (1) SMT. Sushila Devi Jain and Others vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, Others W.P.No.8482/2016, decided on 23.10.2024, Uttam Singh and Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another Another, W.P.No.2458/2011, decide on 20.09.2023).

          M/s A.P. Electrical Equipments Corporation Vs. The Tehsildar and others: 2025 INC 274"

6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State State, referring to the return filed, submits that the petition filed by the petitioners after a period of nearly 30 years from the ddate ate of passing of the order dated 17.03.1983 17.03.198 declaring the lands to be surplus and taking over the possession in the year 1989,, suffers from delay and laches and therefore, deserves dismissal. By referring to the documents filed alongwith the return, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that after hearing the original landholder late Shri Lal Singh Kushwaha,, the order dated 17.03.1983 was passed, whereby 5928.85 square meters of land forming part of Survey No.470/1 was as declared surplus. The notification under Section 10 (1) of the Act of 1976 was issued on 03.09.1983. The Gazette Notification declaring the land to be vested in favour of the State Government in terms of 10 (3) of the Act of 1976 was published on 17.11.1983. A notice in terms terms of Section 10 (5) of the Act of 1976 was issued by the competent authority to the original landholder Shri Lal Singh Kushwaha on 03.11.1989 putting him to notice to surrender the land in question within a period of 30 days, failing which, the proceedings ngs under Section 10 (6) of the Act of 1976 were sought to be undertaken. The said notice was served on ShriLal hriLal Singh Kushwaha on 15.11.1989 and bears his thumb impression impression.. The notice also contains the endorsement of process server evincing the service of notice on the original landholder. Since, the possession of the land was not surrendered by Shri Lal Singh Kushwaha,, the ex-parte ex parte possession was taken on 21.12.1989 by the Tahsildar, Nazul in the presence of Revenue Inspector and thereafter, the correctionss in the revenue map maps as well as the revenue records were incorporated whereby, the land was recorded in the name of State Govt. The Kabja receipt (memorandum) showing taking over ex-parte possession was also drawn. He submits that the aforesaid proceedings were never challenged by the original landholder in his lifetime and therefore, at this stage, the petitioners cannot be permitted to question the said proceedings. Accordingly, he submits that the present petitio petition deserves to be dismissed.

7. An application bearing I.A.No.849/2019 has been filed file by one GauravJadon S/o Shri Ashok Singh Jadon, seeking permission for intervention in the present writ petition on the ground that he is the owner of the land adjoining too the land in question bearing Survey No.470/4 and he has submitted an application before the State Authorities uthorities for settlement of the said land in his favour but on account of pendency of the petition, the application is not being processed by the Revenue Authorities. Subsequently, an application for Final inal Disposal of the petition bearing I.A.No.887/202 I.A.No.887/2024 is also filed by the proposed intervener namely Gaurav Jadon, seeking disposal of the petition on the ground that the th State Authorities uthorities have proceeded to allot a the land in question to the Government Department Departments and therefore, the earlier application filed by the proposed intervener, seeking settlement of the land in question in his favour has been withdrawn. Another application for dismissal of the writ petition tion has been filed by the proposed intervener GauravJadon bearing I.A.No.887/2025 whereby, the orders dated 21.02.2024 and 21.11.2023 passed by the Collector, District Gwalior have been placed on record indicating that the part of the land in que question has been allotted to the Revenue Department epartment for construction of Tahsil building and a part of the land in question has been allotted to the Health Department, Government of M.P. for construction of New Primary Health Centre.

8. No reply to the application se seeking eking dismissal of the writ petition bearing I.A.No.887/2025 is filed by the petitioners. Learned counsel appearing for the proposed intervener submits that in view of the subsequent developments, the present petition deserves dismissal.

9. No other point is pressed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.

11. The record of the Ceiling Case No.251/80 No.251/80-81 81 wherein, the proceedings under the Act of 1976 were undertaken against the original landholder Shri Lal Singh Kushwaha is also produced by the learned counsel appearing for the State for the perusal of this Court.

12. In view of the rival contentions advanced by the parties, the following issues arise for considerati consideration in the instant case:

          "(i).Whether hether the procedure as contemplated in law was adopted by the respondents authorities in taking possession of the surplus land from the landholder Late Shri Lal Singh Kushwaha?

          (ii).Whether Whether the petition filed by the petitioners petitioners suffers from latches?"

Answer to issue No. (i) :

13. The record of the Ceiling Case No. 251/80-81 produced by the State counsel indicates that on being notice noticed, the original landholder submitted the particulars/details of the land in question in terms of Section 6 (2) of the Act of 1976 on 25.06.1981. The draft statement was prepared and thereafter on completing the formalities as contemplated under the Act of 1976, the final order declaring 5928.85 .85 square meters me of the land surplus was passed by the Competent Authority uthority on 17.03.1983 after considering the objection objections submitted by the original land owner. The notification in terms of Section 10 (1) of the Act of 1976 was issued on 03.09.1983. The Gazette publication ultimately affirming the vesting of land in favour of the State in terms of Section 10 (3) of the Act of 1987 was published on 17.11.1983. A notice under Se Section ction 10 (5) of the Act of 1976 specifically informing the erstwhile the landholde landholderr ShriLal Singh Kushwaha that by virtue of publication in gazette under Section 10 (3) of the Act of 1976, was issued by the competent authority on 03.11.1989, since the land stands vested in State, he was call called ed upon to hand over the possession of the surplus land, failing which, the proceedings under Section 10 (6) of the Act of 1976 would be undertaken.

14. Records indicate that the notice under Section 10 (5) of the Act of 1976 was served on Shri Lal Singh Kushwaha on 15.11.1989 and the said notice bears the thumb impression of Shri Lal Singh Kushwaha.. The reverse side of the said notice also bear signatures of Process Server Ramvir Singh and one Bhure Singh S/o Shri Sumer Singh.. The said notice clearly states that in case, the lland owner fails to deliver the possession to Naib Naib-Tahsildar, Tahsildar, Nazul, Gwalior within a period of 30 days, then the possession in terms of Section 10 (6) of the Act of 1976 would be undertaken. Since Shri Lal Singh Kushwaha did not surrender surrendered possession, the possession of the land in question was taken on 21.12.1989 and a Kabja Receipt (memorandum memorandum) was also prepared bearing signatures signature of the Tahsildar (Nazul) as well as Revenue Inspector Inspector.. Due correction in the revenue maps and revenue recordswere record also incorporated rated indicating the State Govt. as owner of the land. The aforesaid documents are filed alongwith the return filed by the State Govt.. The proceeding of vesting, taking over possession and corrections in the revenue maps under the Act of 1976 thus stood concluded co in respect of land in question against Shri Lal Singh Kushwaha on 21.12.1989.

15. The procedure for taking possession of acquired land came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. A. Viswam, AIR 1996 SC 3377, wherein it has been held that one of the accepted modes of taking possession of acquired land is the recording of a memorandum or Panchnama by the Officer in the presence of witnesses singed by him and that would constitute taking possession of the land, as it would be impossible to take physical possession of the acquired land. The Apex Court held that it is a common knowledge that owners/interested persons may not cooperate in taking possession of land. In the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State ate of Gujarat, (1998) 4 SCC 387 the Apex Court held in para 13 that recording of Panchnama in presence of witnesses signed by them as also by Circle Officer evidencing taking over of possession is a sufficient compliance. The revenue records showing party in possession of land coupled with the revenue entries is a sufficient compliance. The Apex Court held that the High Court could not convert itself into a revenue court and hold that inspite of Panchnama and revenue record actual physical possession of the th land was not taken over.

16. The procedure for taking over the possession of the land as indicated in the records when tested on the anvil of the above preposition as laid down by the apex court reveals that due and proper possession of lands, in accordance accord with law, was taken by the respondents. The subsequent retention of possession of land, if any by the petitioners would tantamount only to illegal or unlawful possession as has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramnarayan an and d Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others:W.A.No.81/2006 decided on 14.02.2002 at Jabalpur and the relevant para of the said judgment reads as under:

          "15. A constitution bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, reported in 2020 (8) SCC 129 considered the question when is physical possession is said to have been taken under the provisions of the 1 AIR 1996 SC 3377 2 (1998) 4 SCC 387 3 (1996) 4 SCC 212 4 2003 (2) MPLJ 271 5 (2020) 8 SCC 129, paragraph 247, 47, 260, 274 8 Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court held that when the State draws up a memorandum or Panchnama of taking possession, that amounts to taking the physical possession of the land. When vacant land is acquired, the State is not supposed to pu putt some person or the police in possession to retain it and start cultivation till the time the land is used for the purpose for which it is acquired. The State is not supposed to physically reside or occupy the land once the possession is taken after drawing drawi of Panchnama. After drawing Panchnama taking possession of the land, if any one makes re-entry entry over the land then he is deemed to be a trespasser on the land which is in the possession of the State. It was further held that once possession is taken by drawing drawing of Panchnama the lands vests in the government free from encumbrances. Thereafter any illegal re re-entry entry over the land cannot have the effect of divesting the land once it vests in the State."

Issue no.(i) is answered accordingly.

Answer issue no. ((ii)

17. As per the own pleadings of the petitioners as stated in para 4 of the writ petition, the petitioner'ss father Shri Lal Singh Kushwaha (original landholder) expired in the year 2011. The original land owner, in his lifetime never challenged either the order dated 17.03.1983 declaring the land in question as surplus or the factum of taking over possession by the State Government. It is only ly after his death, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition in the year 2014 raising factual dispute as regards alleged irregularities in the matter of taking over of possession by the State Government.

18. It has been vehemently argued by th thee learned counsels appearing for the petitioners that the so-called so called possession of land taken from the petitioners is merely a paper possession, and the procedure as contemplated under Section 10 (6) of the Act of 1976 has not been followed and there is nothing not on record to indicate that any forceful possession was taken from the petitioners. In support of the said contention, learned counsels appearing for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of A.P. Electrical Equipmen Equipment vs. Tahsildar and Others etc., reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 447.

19. It has also been argued by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Assam v. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma Sarma, (2015) 5 SCC 321 which intended to dilute the earlier decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Hari Ram, (2013) 4 SCC 280, came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of A.P. Electrical Equipment (supra) and the Apex Court in the said case ase has clarified that the earlier judgment in the case of Hari Ram (supra) holds the field even as on date. Accordingly, they submit that in the absence of following the procedure as contemplated under Section 10 (6) of the Act of 1976, it cannot be said that proper possession in accordance with law was taken from the petitioner petitioners.

20. It is noteworthy that the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Bhaskar Jyoti Sharma (supra) and Hari Ram (supra) came up for consideration by the Constitution Bench of Five Judges of the Apex Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs.. Manoharlal, 2020 (8) SCC 129 and paragraph 344 of the judgment in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) reads aas under:

          344. In this context, it is noteworthy that the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, was repealed in the year 1999; thereafter, claims were raised. After repeal, it was claimed that actual physical possession has not been taken by the StState ate Government as such repeal has the effect of effacing the proceedings of taking possession, which it was alleged, was not in accordance with the law. In State of Assam v. BhaskarJyotiSarma [State of Assam v. BhaskarJyotiSarma, (2015) 5 SCC 321] , submis submission sion was raised by the State of Assam that physical possession has been taken over by the competent authority and it was submitted on behalf of landowner that procedure prescribed under Section 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, was was not followed. It was before taking possession under Section 10(6) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the notification under Section 10(5) was necessary; thus, no possession can be said to have been taken within the meaning of Section 3 of the Repeal Act.

          The question this Court had to consider was whether actual physical possession was taken over in that case by the competent authority. The State of Assam submitted that though possession was taken over in the year 1991, may be unilaterallylly and without notice to the landowner. It was urged that mere non-compliance compliance with Section 10(5) would be insufficient to attract the provisions of Section 3 of the Repeal Act. This Court repelled the submission of the landowner and held as under : (SCC ppp. 329-30, paras 15-17).17).

          "15. The High Court has held [BhaskarjyotiSarma v. State of Assam, 2010 SCC OnLineGau 377] that the alleged dispossession was not preceded by any notice under Section 10(5) of the Act. Assuming that to be the case all that it would would mean is that on 7-12-1991 7 1991 when the erstwhile owner was dispossessed from the land in question, he could have made a grievance based on Section 10 (5) and even sought restoration of possession to him no matter he would upon such restoration once again be liable to be evicted under Sections 10 (5) and 10(6) of the Act upon his failure to deliver or surrender such possession. In reality therefore unless there was something that was inherently wrong so as to affect the very process of taking over such as the identity of the land or the boundaries thereof or any other circumstance of a similar nature going to the root of the matter hence requiring an adjudication, a person who had lost his land by reason of the same being declared surplus under Section 10 (3) w would ould not consider it worthwhile to agitate the violation of Section 10 (5) for he can well understand that even when the Court may uphold his contention that the procedure ought to be followed as prescribed, it may still be not enough for him to retain the land for the authorities could the very next day dispossess him from the same by simply serving a notice under Section 10(5). It would, in that view, be an academic exercise for any owner or person in possession to find fault with his dispossession on the ground that no notice under Section 10(5) had been served upon him.

16. The issue can be viewed from another angle also. Assuming that a person in possession could make a grievance, no matter without much gain in the ultimate analysis, the question is whether whether such grievance could be made long after the alleged violation of Section 10(5). If actual physical possession was taken over from the erstwhile landowner on 77- 12-1991 1991 as is alleged in the present case, any grievance based on Section 10(5) ought to have have been made within a reasonable time of such dispossession. If the owner did not do so, forcibly taking over of possession would acquire legitimacy by sheer lapse of time. In any such situation, the owner or the person in possession must be deemed to have waived his right under Section 10(5) of the Act. Any other view would, in our opinion, give a licence to a litigant to make a grievance not because he has suffered any real prejudice that needs to be redressed but only because the fortuitous circumstance of a Repeal Act tempted him to raise the issue regarding his dispossession being in violation of the prescribed procedure.

17. Reliance was placed by the respondents upon the decision of this Court in Hari Ram case [State of U.P. v. Hari Ram, (2013) 4 SCC 280 : (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 583] . That decision does not, in our view, lend much assistance to the respondents. We say so, because this Court was in State of U.P. v. Hari Ram [State of U.P. v. Hari Ram, (2013) 4 SCC 280 : (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 583] considering whether the word "may" appearing in Section 10(5) gave to the competent authority the discretion to issue or not to issue a notice before taking physical possession of the land in question under Section 10(6). The question of whether the breach of Section 10(5) and possible dispossession without notice would vitiate the act of dispossession itself or render it non est in the eye of the law did not fall for consideration in that case. In our opinion, what Section 10(5) prescribes is an ordinary and logical course of action that ought to be followed before the authorities decided to use force to dispossess the occupant under Section 10(6). In the case at hand, if the appellant's version regarding dispossession of the erstwhile owner in December 1991 is correct, correct, the fact that such dispossession was without a notice under Section 10(5) will be of no consequence and would not vitiate or obliterate the act of taking possession for the purposes of Section 3 of the Repeal Act. That is because BhabadebSarma, erstwhil erstwhilee owner, had not made any grievance based on breach of Section 10(5) at any stage during his lifetime, implying thereby that he had waived his right to do so."

          This Court held that provisions of the Repeal Act could not be extended in such a case where possession has been taken without following the procedure, and the landowner cannot retain the land. This Court also observed that once possession has been taken over in the year 1991, any grievance as to non non-compliance compliance of Section 10 (5) ought to have been made within a reasonable time of such dispossession. By sheer lapse of time, the possession would acquire legitimacy. Thus, the owner or the person in possession must be deemed to have waived his right under Section 10(5) of the Act. This Court also obser observed ved that only because of the fortuitous circumstance of a Repeal Act, which confers certain rights, the litigation had tempted the landowner to raise the issue regarding his dispossession being in violation of the prescribed procedure. It is clear from the aforesaid decision that such claims cannot be entertained, and any such dispute raised belatedly was repelled by this Court.

          (Emphasis Supplied)

21. The underline portion of the aforesaid judgment delivered by the Constitution Bench of Five Judges of the Apex Court indicates that not only the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bhaskar Jyoti Sharma (supra) and the case of Hari Ram (supra), were considered but also the preposition of law as laid down in the case of Bhaskar Jyoti Sharma (supra) has been approved and reiterated.

22. The facts in the case of A.P. Electrical Equipment (supra) were entirely different from the present case, as in the said case, the permanent structures of the petitioners therein were found to be existing even after taking over possession of the land and the judgment in the case of Indore Development Authority (s (supra) being earlier in point of time and being of Constitution Bench is binding on this court.

23. Though, the stand has been taken by the petitioners that they are still in possession of the land and they are residing in their house constructed thereon since ince last 25 years. However, no documentary evidence in the said regard has been filed by the petitioner petitioners,, on the contrary, the perusal of the documents annexed with I.A.No.887/2025 indicates that after due inquiry and spot verification, the part of the la land in question has been allotted to the R Revenue Department epartment of the State Government for con construction struction of a Tahsil building vide order dated 21.02.2024 and a part of the land in question has been allotted to the Health Department of the State Government for construction of New Primary Health Center vide order dated 21.11.2023. The inquiry conducted for allotment of the land in question to the Department Departments of the State Government does not reflect any construction over the land in question. That apart, the said orders are not even disputed by the petitioners by filing any rebuttal. The contention of the petitioners as regards construction of their house over the land in question is, thus wholly unfounded unfounded.

24. Thus, the original landholder Shri Lal Singh Kushwaha having failed to challenge the order of declaration of the land in question as surplus passed on 17.03.1983 and the exercise of taking over possession in the year 1989 at the relevant time and in his entire lifetime upto the year 2011, the petitioners, petitio being his sons, cannot be permitted to dispute the said issues at this distant point of time nearly after 30 years in the year 2014,, the petition filed by the petitioners latches The said aspect is covered by preposition laid down thus suffers from latches. in the case of Bhaskar Jyoti Sharma (Supra) as approved in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) (supra).

Issue No. (ii) is answered accordingly.

25. In so far as contention of non non-grant grant of compensation in terms of section 11 of the Act of 1976 is concerned, it is suffice to observe that section 5 of the Repeal act of 1999 does not apply to proceedings related to section 11 of the principal act.

26. In view of the above consideration considerations and answers to the issues framed, no case for interference is made out, accordingly the petition sans merits, is hereby dismissed.. No orders as to cost.

27. All pending ing applications, if any, stand disposed of.