Supreme Court Upholds State’s Right to Surplus Land Under ULC Act: State of M.P. vs. Ghisilal (2021)

Date of the Judgment: 22 November 2021
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 2153 of 2012
Judges: R. Subhash Reddy, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J.
Can a civil court overturn orders made by authorities under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, especially after the land has been declared surplus and taken into possession by the government? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent case, clarifying the extent of civil court jurisdiction in matters already decided under the ULC Act. This judgment has significant implications for land disputes and the finality of orders passed by competent authorities. The bench consisted of Justices R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, with the opinion authored by Justice R. Subhash Reddy.

Case Background

The case revolves around agricultural land in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, originally owned by Late Padam Singh. This land fell under the purview of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (ULC Act). Padam Singh declared his land under the ULC Act, and the competent authority determined that 16000.32 square meters of his land was surplus. Following this, notifications were issued under Section 10(1) of the ULC Act on 16.09.1983, and under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act, published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette on 20.01.1984. The State of Madhya Pradesh claimed to have taken possession of the surplus land and corrected revenue entries to reflect the State’s ownership. The land was then allotted to the Bhopal Development Authority for constructing houses for the poor.

Ghisilal, claiming to be the adopted son and sole heir of Padam Singh, filed a suit in 2003 seeking a declaration that the surplus land was exempt from the ULC Act, arguing that possession had not been taken before the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999 (Repeal Act) came into force. He also sought a permanent injunction to prevent the State from interfering with his possession.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court, i.e., the XII Civil Judge, Class – II, Bhopal, decreed the suit on 24.12.2004, ruling that possession had not been taken before the Repeal Act came into force. The IV Additional District Judge, Bhopal, dismissed the State’s first appeal on 23.07.2005. The High Court also dismissed the State’s second appeal on 08.11.2006, upholding the lower courts’ decisions. The State then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that possession was indeed taken and the land was used for public purposes.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the following:

• The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (ULC Act): This Act aimed to impose a ceiling on vacant urban land holdings and acquire surplus land for public purposes. Key provisions include:
  • Section 10(1): “As soon as may be after the service of the statement under sub-section (5) of section 9, the competent authority shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare that the excess vacant land referred to in the statement shall, subject to the provisions of this Chapter, be deemed to have been acquired by the State Government and upon the publication of such notification, such land shall vest absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances with effect from the date specified in the notification.”
  • Section 10(3): “Where any vacant land is vested in the State Government under sub-section (1), the competent authority may, by notice in writing, order any person who may be in possession of such land to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the State Government or to any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf within thirty days of the service of the notice.”
• The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (Repeal Act): This Act repealed the ULC Act, with certain savings clauses.

Arguments

Appellant (State of Madhya Pradesh):

• The suit filed by Ghisilal was not maintainable as the orders passed by the competent authority under the ULC Act had become final, and possession of the land was taken before the Repeal Act came into force.
• Possession of the land was taken following the procedure under the ULC Act, and the land was recorded in the name of the Government. The land was allotted to the Bhopal Development Authority for constructing houses for the poor, and substantial amounts were spent on construction.
• The respondent, Ghisilal, was a signatory to the panchnama (record of possession), which proves that possession was taken.
• The civil court lacks jurisdiction to declare orders passed under the ULC Act as illegal, especially when those orders have become final.

Respondent (Ghisilal):

• The original declarant, Padam Singh, died before possession was taken. No fresh notice was issued to Ghisilal, the legal heir. Therefore, the taking of possession is invalid.
• The suit was maintainable and the Court should mould the relief by issuing appropriate directions.
• Possession was not taken before the Repeal Act came into force, thus the land should be exempted from the ULC Act.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue addressed by the Court was:

1. Whether the civil court had the jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging the orders passed under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, after the competent authority had declared the land as surplus and taken possession.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issue:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the State of Madhya Pradesh, setting aside the judgments of the lower courts. The Court held that the civil suit filed by Ghisilal was not maintainable.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• State of Assam v. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma [(2015) 5 SCC 321]*: This case was followed by the Court to reinforce its decision that the suit was not maintainable.
• Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal [(2020) 8 SCC 129]*: This judgment was used to support the Court’s finding that the panchnama was sufficient evidence of taking physical possession of the land.
• Competent Authority, Calcutta v. David Mantosh [(2020) 12 SCC 542]*: This case was relied upon to emphasize that civil courts cannot declare orders passed under the ULC Act as illegal.
• The judgments cited by the respondent, including Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh [(2020) 2 SCC 569]*, Mangalsen v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2014) 15 SCC 332]*, Gaiv Dinshaw Irani v. Tehmtan Irani [(2014) 8 SCC 294]* and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Hari Ram [(2013) 4 SCC 280]*, were distinguished and not found to be applicable to the facts of the present case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The self-contained nature of the ULC Act, which provides a mechanism for appeals and revisions, thereby implying the exclusion of civil court jurisdiction in such matters.
• The fact that the competent authority’s orders had become final and were not challenged by the respondent within the stipulated time.
• The evidence of possession taken by the State, including the panchnama, which was signed by the respondent himself, and the report from the District Judge.
• The utilization of the land for public purposes, specifically the construction of houses for the poor, which further solidified the State’s claim.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Civil courts cannot entertain suits challenging orders passed under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, once those orders have become final and the land has been taken into possession by the State.
• The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, is a self-contained code, and its provisions must be followed for any grievances related to the Act.
• Taking possession by drawing a panchnama is considered valid physical possession.
• Land acquired under the ULC Act and used for public purposes is protected from challenges in civil courts.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions, other than setting aside the judgments of the lower courts and dismissing the suit filed by the respondent.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that civil courts do not have jurisdiction to entertain suits challenging orders passed under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, after the competent authority has declared the land as surplus and taken possession. This reinforces the principle that statutory authorities’ decisions are final and binding, especially when they are not challenged within the stipulated time frame.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of M.P. vs. Ghisilal reinforces the finality of orders passed under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, and limits the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters already decided by competent authorities. The Court emphasized the importance of following the statutory framework provided by the ULC Act and upheld the State’s right to utilize surplus land for public purposes. This decision provides clarity on the legal position regarding land acquired under the ULC Act and its protection from subsequent challenges in civil courts.