# STATE OF M.P v. GHISILAL

- **Citation:** [2021] 10 S.C.R. 1178
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2021-11-22
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 2153 of 2012
- **Bench:** R. Subhash Reddy, Hrishikesh Roy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-m-p-v-ghisilal-34619
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976: ss. 10(1),
(3) - Land in the urban agglomeration - Declaration of surplus
land - Jurisdiction of civil court - Held: In view of provisions of
appeal, revision before the designated appellate and revisional
authorities available for aggrieved parties under the Act, the
jurisdiction of the civil courts to try suit relating to land which is
subject-matter of ceiling proceedings, stands excluded by implication
- Civil court cannot declare, orders passed by the authorities under
the Act as illegal or non est - On facts, orders passed by the
competent authorities, that the original declarant was holding excess
land and the consequential notifications issued u/s. 10(1), (3) have
become final, it was not open for the respondent to file a suit seeking
declaration - Trial court erred in entertaining the suit, as filed by
the respondent and even the first appellate court and second
appellate court have not considered the various grounds raised by
the appellant in proper perspective - Thus, the order passed by the
trial court as upheld by the appellate court, set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The land in question is in the Urban
Agglomeration and covered by the Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act, 1976. As such, original owner late PS had filed
declaration under the provisions of the ULC Act and after
conducting necessary inquiry, final orders were passed by the
competent authority declaring 16000.32 square meters of land
as surplus land. It is also clear from the material placed on record
that consequent to final orders passed by the competent authority,
notifications under Section 10(1) and 10(3) of the ULC Act were
issued. Although, it is the case of the respondent - plaintiff that
possession was taken without issuing notice, as such it cannot
be considered as valid taking over of possession, but it is evident
from the copy of the panchnama, the respondent, who claims to
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1179
be the legal heir of late PS, is also a signatory as a witness to the
same. Though the respondent - plaintiff was a witness to the
panchnama for taking over possession, a belated attempt was
made by filing the present suit by the respondent without even
questioning the orders passed by the competent authority under
the Act, declaring the land in question as a surplus land. The trial
court as well as appellate court fell in error in recording a finding
that possession was not taken, inspite of taking possession by
conducting panchnama for which respondent is a signatory. In
view of the stand of the appellant, of taking over possession of
the land by conducting panchnama for which respondent is a
signatory, it is difficult to believe the stand of the respondent
that possession was not taken. In view of the stand of the
respondent that possession is with the respondent, this Court
called for a report from the District Judge. Pursuant to the same,
report dated 14.04.2021 was sent by the Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh to this Court. It is
evident from such report that the appellant has taken possession
of the land and the same was allotted to the Bhopal Development
Authority and the same was utilised for construction of about
400 houses for needy slum dwellers by spending huge amount.
Thus, it is clear that possession of the land was not only taken
but same is utilised for a public purpose. [Para 13][1184-F-G;
1085-A-F]
1.2 The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is
a self-contained Code. Various provisions of the Act make it clear
that if any orders are passed by the competent authority, there is
provision for appeal, revision before the designated appellate
and revisional authorities. In view of such remedies available for
aggrieved parties, the jurisdiction of the civil courts to try suit
relating to land which is subject-matter of ceiling proceedings,
stands excluded by implication. Civil court cannot declare, orders
passed by the authoriti

## Text

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1178
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
 [2021] 10 S.C.R. 1178
1178
STATE OF M.P.
v.
GHISILAL
(Civil Appeal No. 2153 of 2012)
NOVEMBER 22, 2021
[R. SUBHASH REDDY AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976: ss. 10(1),
(3) - Land in the urban agglomeration - Declaration of surplus
land - Jurisdiction of civil court - Held: In view of provisions of
appeal, revision before the designated appellate and revisional
authorities available for aggrieved parties under the Act, the
jurisdiction of the civil courts to try suit relating to land which is
subject-matter of ceiling proceedings, stands excluded by implication
- Civil court cannot declare, orders passed by the authorities under
the Act as illegal or non est - On facts, orders passed by the
competent authorities, that the original declarant was holding excess
land and the consequential notifications issued u/s. 10(1), (3) have
become final, it was not open for the respondent to file a suit seeking
declaration - Trial court erred in entertaining the suit, as filed by
the respondent and even the first appellate court and second
appellate court have not considered the various grounds raised by
the appellant in proper perspective - Thus, the order passed by the
trial court as upheld by the appellate court, set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The land in question is in the Urban
Agglomeration and covered by the Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act, 1976. As such, original owner late PS had filed
declaration under the provisions of the ULC Act and after
conducting necessary inquiry, final orders were passed by the
competent authority declaring 16000.32 square meters of land
as surplus land. It is also clear from the material placed on record
that consequent to final orders passed by the competent authority,
notifications under Section 10(1) and 10(3) of the ULC Act were
issued. Although, it is the case of the respondent - plaintiff that
possession was taken without issuing notice, as such it cannot
be considered as valid taking over of possession, but it is evident
from the copy of the panchnama, the respondent, who claims to
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1179
be the legal heir of late PS, is also a signatory as a witness to the
same. Though the respondent - plaintiff was a witness to the
panchnama for taking over possession, a belated attempt was
made by filing the present suit by the respondent without even
questioning the orders passed by the competent authority under
the Act, declaring the land in question as a surplus land. The trial
court as well as appellate court fell in error in recording a finding
that possession was not taken, inspite of taking possession by
conducting panchnama for which respondent is a signatory. In
view of the stand of the appellant, of taking over possession of
the land by conducting panchnama for which respondent is a
signatory, it is difficult to believe the stand of the respondent
that possession was not taken. In view of the stand of the
respondent that possession is with the respondent, this Court
called for a report from the District Judge. Pursuant to the same,
report dated 14.04.2021 was sent by the Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh to this Court. It is
evident from such report that the appellant has taken possession
of the land and the same was allotted to the Bhopal Development
Authority and the same was utilised for construction of about
400 houses for needy slum dwellers by spending huge amount.
Thus, it is clear that possession of the land was not only taken
but same is utilised for a public purpose. [Para 13][1184-F-G;
1085-A-F]
1.2 The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is
a self-contained Code. Various provisions of the Act make it clear
that if any orders are passed by the competent authority, there is
provision for appeal, revision before the designated appellate
and revisional authorities. In view of such remedies available for
aggrieved parties, the jurisdiction of the civil courts to try suit
relating to land which is subject-matter of ceiling proceedings,
stands excluded by implication. Civil court cannot declare, orders
passed by the authorities under the ULC Act, as illegal or non
est. More so, when such orders have become final, no declaration
could have been granted by the civil court. [Para 14][1185-F-H;
1186-A]
1.3 It is clear from the orders passed by the competent
authorities, that the original declarant was holding excess land
to the extent of 16000.32 square meters. When the orders passed
by the competent authority and consequential notifications issued
STATE OF M.P. v. GHISILAL
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1180
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
under Section 10(1) and 10(3) of the ULC Act have become final,
it was not open for the respondent to file a suit seeking
declaration, as prayed for. As the jurisdiction of the civil courts is
barred by necessary implication, trial court fell in error in
entertaining the suit, as filed by the respondent and even the
first appellate court and second appellate court have not
considered the various grounds raised by the appellant in proper
perspective. [Para 15][1186-B-D]
1.4 The judgment and decree in Civil Suit as confirmed by
the first appellate Court and the High Court, is set aside.
Consequently, the suit filed by the respondent is dismissed.
[Para 17][1186-F-G]
Competent Authority, Calcutta, under the Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and another v. David
Mantosh and others (2020) 12 SCC 542:[2019] 4 SCR
331 - relied on.
State of Assam v. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma and others (2015)
5 SCC 321 : [2014] 14 SCR 1451; Indore Development
Authority v. Manoharlal and others (2020) 8 SCC 129
: [2020] 3 SCR 1; Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal
Pradesh and others (2020) 2 SCC 569; Mangalsen v.
State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2014) 15 SCC 332;
Gaiv Dinshaw Irani and others v. Tehmtan Irani and
others (2014) 8 SCC 294 : [2014] 5 SCR 646; State of
Uttar Pradesh v. Hari Ram (2013) 4 SCC 280 : [2013]
2 SCR 301 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2014] 14 SCR 1451
referred to
Para 9
[2020] 3 SCR 1
referred to
Para 9
(2020) 2 SCC 569
referred to
Para 10
(2014) 15 SCC 332
referred to
Para 10
[2014] 5 SCR 646
referred to
Para 10
[2013] 2 SCR 301
referred to
Para 10
[2019] 4 SCR 331
relied on.
Para 16
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1181
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2153
of 2012.
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.11.2006 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Second Appeal No. 129 of 2006.
Saurabh Mishra, AAG, Aakash Nadolia, Sunny Choudhary, Advs.
for the Appellant.
Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Adv. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.
1. This Civil Appeal is preferred by the appellant - State of Madhya
Pradesh, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 08.11.2006 passed
in Second Appeal No.129 of 2006. By the aforesaid order, the High
Court has dismissed the Second Appeal, preferred by the appellant herein
confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned IV Additional
District Judge, Bhopal, in Civil Appeal No.37-A/2005 dated 23.07.2005
and the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2004 passed by the learned
XIIth Civil Judge, Class - II, Bhopal, in Civil Suit No.138-A/2004.
2. Necessary facts, in brief, are as under:
3. The agricultural land bearing Survey Nos.171 to 184, 214, 217
and 284 admeasuring 17.18 acres situated at Village Bag Sevania, Tehsil
Huzur, District Bhopal, was recorded in the name of Late Padam Singh
as a Bhoomi Swami. In the aforesaid land, late Padam Singh was having
1/4th share. As the said land was covered by the Urban Land (Ceiling
and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for convenience sake, hereinafter referred
to as 'ULC Act'), late Padam Singh has filed declaration as contemplated
under the provisions of the ULC Act. The competent authority has
determined an extent of 16000.32 square meters of land as vacant land
and the same was declared surplus. Consequent to passing of final orders
by the competent authority, a notification under Section 10(1) of the
ULC Act was issued on 16.09.1983 and the notification as contemplated
under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act was published in the Madhya Pradesh
Gazette, Part - III dated 20.01.1984.
4. It is the case of the appellant herein that after following the
necessary procedure contemplated under the ULC Act, possession of
the surplus land was taken. Thereafter, the revenue entries were corrected
STATE OF M.P. v. GHISILAL
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1182
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
showing the State as owner to the extent of the surplus land declared by
the competent authority. It is also the case of the appellant that as the
possession was already taken prior to coming into force of the Urban
Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999 (for convenience sake,
hereinafter referred to as 'Repeal Act'), the said land was allotted for
the purpose of constructing dwelling houses to the poor.
5. The respondent herein had filed suit for declaration and
permanent injunction on 09.09.2003, claiming himself to be the sole heir
and adopted son of Late Padam Singh. The relief in the suit reads as
under:
"1) That the surplus land of 16000.32 square meters which has
been declared surplus, declaration be exempted under the Urban
Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 because possession has
not been taken.
2) That the defendant be restrained from interfering with the
possession of the respondent."
6. The Trial Court i.e., XII Civil Judge, Class - II, Bhopal, by the
judgment and decree dated 24.12.2004, decreed the suit on the ground
that possession has not been taken, before the Repeal Act has come into
force. Trial court also granted consequential relief restraining the appellant
herein from interfering with the possession of the respondent. As against
the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the matter was carried
by way of first appeal, by the appellant, before the IV Additional District
Judge, Bhopal and the Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal by the
judgment and decree dated 23.07.2005. As against the same, the appellant
has carried the matter by way of Second Appeal before the High Court.
The Second Appeal is also dismissed by the impugned judgment and
decree dated 08.11.2006.
7. The aforesaid impugned judgment is questioned in this appeal
mainly on the ground that after necessary notifications were issued under
Section 10 of the ULC Act, appellant has taken possession and utilised
the subject land for construction of houses for the poor by spending
huge amounts. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent has not
questioned the orders passed by the competent authority declaring the
land as surplus land, it is not open to seek declaration by the respondent
- plaintiff as prayed for. A specific ground was raised in the grounds of
appeal that after taking possession, land was recorded in the name of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1183
the Government and the surplus land was allotted to Bhopal Development
Authority for the benefit of slum dwellers and the said Authority has
already constructed 100 (hundred) houses on the land by spending about
Rs.1.50 Crores by the time the appeal was preferred to this Court. It is
also the case of the appellant that relief as sought in the suit is a belated
attempt, though such suit is not maintainable in law.
8. We have heard Mr. Saurabh Mishra, learned Additional
Advocate General appearing for the appellant - State, and Mrs. Pragati
Neekhra, learned counsel for the respondent, at length.
9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that
though the suit as framed is not maintainable at all, the Courts below
have not only entertained the suit but also granted decree contrary to the
various orders and notifications issued under the provisions of the ULC
Act, 1976. It is submitted that when possession was already taken and
the land is recorded in the name of the Government, trial court has
erroneously decreed the suit of the respondent and confirmed on appeal
on the premise that possession is not taken. It is submitted that in fact,
not only possession of the subject land is taken and recorded in the name
of the Government, but the same is also allotted to the Bhopal
Development Authority for construction of houses for the poor and
substantial amount is spent for construction of houses. It is submitted
that in any event, the declaration as prayed for, is not at all maintainable
when the orders passed by the competent authority have become final
and possession of the land was taken prior to coming into force of the
Repeal Act. The learned counsel for the appellant, in support of his
arguments, has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in the
cases of State of Assam v. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma and others1, Indore
Development Authority v. Manoharlal and others2and Competent
Authority, Calcutta, under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)
Act, 1976 and another v. David Mantosh and others3.
10. On the other hand, Mrs. Pragati Neekhra, learned counsel for
the respondent, has vehemently opposed the case of the appellant and
submitted that when the original declarant died before possession is taken,
without issuing any fresh notice to the only legal heir of the original
declarant, it was not open to the appellant authorities to take possession
1 (2015) 5 SCC 321
2 (2020) 8 SCC 129
3 (2020) 12 SCC 542
STATE OF M.P. v. GHISILAL [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. ]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1184
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
consequent to the orders passed under the ULC Act. It is submitted that
in any event, if the suit filed as prayed for is not maintainable, this Court
may mould the relief by issuing appropriate directions. The learned counsel,
in support of her arguments, has placed reliance on the judgments of this
Court in the cases of Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and
others4, Mangalsen v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another5, Gaiv
Dinshaw Irani and others v. Tehmtan Irani and others6and State of
Uttar Pradesh v. Hari Ram7.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we have
perused the impugned judgment and other material placed on record.
12. As evident from the copy of the plaint, which is placed on
record, the respondent filed the suit for declaration and permanent
injunction. The prayer in the suit reads as under:
"(A) A decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendant to the effect that 16000.32 square meters of surplus
declared land out of the disputed land of the ownership of the
plaintiff the description whereof has been given in Para 1 is free
from the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 because the
possession whereof was not received by the government till the
date the Repeal Act became effective.
(B) A permanent injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiff
and against the defendant thereby directing the defendant not to
interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff."
13. It is not in dispute that the land in question is in the Urban
Agglomeration and covered by the ULC Act, 1976. As such, original
owner late Padam Singh has filed declaration under the provisions of the
ULC Act and after conducting necessary inquiry, final orders were passed
by the competent authority declaring 16000.32 square meters of land as
surplus land. It is also clear from the material placed on record that
consequent to final orders passed by the competent authority, notifications
under Section 10(1) and 10(3) of the ULC Act were issued. Although, it
is the case of the respondent - plaintiff that possession was taken without
issuing notice, as such it cannot be considered as valid taking over of
4 (2020) 2 SCC 569
5 (2014) 15 SCC 332
6 (2014) 8 SCC 294
7 (2013) 4 SCC 280
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1185
possession, but it is evident from the copy of the panchnama, the
respondent, who claims to be the legal heir of late Padam Singh, is also
a signatory as a witness to the same. Though the respondent - plaintiff
was a witness to the panchnama for taking over possession, a belated
attempt was made by filing the present suit by the respondent without
even questioning the orders passed by the competent authority under
the Act, declaring the land in question as a surplus land. The trial court
as well as appellate court fell in error in recording a finding that possession
was not taken, inspite of taking possession by conducting panchnama
for which respondent is a signatory. In the judgment relied on by the
learned counsel for the appellant in the case of Indore Development
Authority2, this Court while dealing with the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act has held that when the possession of the land is taken by
drawing a panchnama, that amounts to taking physical possession of
the land. It is further held that anybody claiming possession thereafter
has to be treated as a trespasser and has no right to possess the land
which vests with the State free from all encumbrances. In view of the
stand of the appellant, of taking over possession of the land by conducting
panchnama for which respondent is a signatory, it is difficult to believe
the stand of the respondent that possession was not taken. In view of
the stand of the respondent that possession is with the respondent, this
Court called for a report from the District Judge. Pursuant to the same,
report dated 14.04.2021 was sent by the learned Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh to this Court. It is evident
from such report that the appellant has taken possession of the land and
the same was allotted to the Bhopal Development Authority and the
same was utilised for construction of about 400 houses for needy slum
dwellers by spending huge amount. Thus, it is clear that possession of
the land was not only taken but same is utilised for a public purpose.
14. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is a selfcontained Code. Various provisions of the Act make it clear that if any
orders are passed by the competent authority, there is provision for appeal,
revision before the designated appellate and revisional authorities. In
view of such remedies available for aggrieved parties, the jurisdiction of
the civil courts to try suit relating to land which is subject-matter of
ceiling proceedings, stands excluded by implication. Civil court cannot
declare, orders passed by the authorities under the ULC Act, as illegal
or non est. More so, when such orders have become final, no declaration
could have been granted by the civil court. In this regard reference may
STATE OF M.P. v. GHISILAL [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. ]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1186
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Competent
Authority, Calcutta, under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)
Act, 19763. We are totally in agreement with the aforesaid view taken
by this Court.
15. In this case, it is clear from the orders passed by the competent
authorities, that the original declarant was holding excess land to the
extent of 16000.32 square meters. When the orders passed by the
competent authority and consequential notifications issued under Section
10(1) and 10(3) of the ULC Act have become final, it was not open for
the respondent to file a suit seeking declaration, as prayed for. As we
are of the view that jurisdiction of the civil courts is barred by necessary
implication, trial court fell in error in entertaining the suit, as filed by the
respondent and even the first appellate court and second appellate court
have not considered the various grounds raised by the appellant in proper
perspective.
16. Although it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for
the respondent to mould the relief, it is trite principle that where the suit
is filed with particular pleadings and reliefs, it is to be considered with
reference to pleadings on record and the reliefs claimed in the suit only.
The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent would
not render any assistance to support the case of the respondent. As we
are in agreement with the view taken by this Court earlier in the case of
Competent Authority, Calcutta, under the Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act, 19763 this appeal is to be allowed by setting aside the
judgment and decree passed by the trial court as confirmed by the appellate
court on the ground that such suit itself was not maintainable.
17. For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Appeal is allowed. The
impugned judgment and decree dated 24.12.2004 in Civil Suit No.138A/2004 passed by the learned XII Civil Judge, Class - II, Bhopal, as
confirmed by the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated
23.07.2005 in Civil Appeal No.37-A/2005 and the High Court vide
judgment and order dated 08.11.2006 in S.A. No.129 of 2006, is set
aside. Consequently, the suit filed by the respondent before the learned
XII Civil Judge, Class-II, Bhopal stands dismissed, with no order as to
costs.
Nidhi Jain
Appeal allowed.