K.K.Lahoti, J. - (1.)The appellant aggrieved by an order of learned Single Judge dated 1.3.2006 in W.P.No. 13534/2005, has preferred this appeal under section 2(1) of the M.P.Uchha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005. Before the learned Single Judge the appellant challenged the order dated 10. 10.2005 passed by the Additional Collector and competent authority Urban Land Ceiling Act, Jabalpur in revenue case no.60/B-121/88-89, by which the Additional Collector found that the petitioner was dispossessed by the Revenue Officer from surplus land declared under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short) on 4.8.1988. The competent authority also found that due procedure for dispossessing the appellant was followed by the revenue authorities and after dispossession of appellant the land was recorded in the name of State of M.P., in place of appellant, the holder of land. Earlierthe petitioner filed a writ petition W.P.No.3763/2005, in which order Annexure A-2 dated 23.5.2005 was passed and the competent authority was directed to look into the fact whether possession of the land was really taken over or not as per law and decide this question accordingly.
(2.)The order passed by learned Single Judge has been assailed on following grounds :-
(i) That though in ceiling case no.208/A-90/(B-9)/81-82 the appellant's land of village Oriya and Karmeta, District Jabalpur admeasuring 105735.54 sq.m., was declared surplus, but the competent authority had not taken actual possession from the appellant.

(ii) That notice as required under section 10(5) of the Act was not served on the appellant.

(iii) That the appellant remained in possession of the land till 17.2.2000, the date on which the State Government vide notification dated 9.3.2000 adopted the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'Repeal Act' for short), so under section 3(2) of the 'Repeal Act', the appellant who was not dispossessed by the State Government, is entitled to retain the land.

(iv) That the learned Single Judge has not considered the report of Revenue Inspector, Maharajpur Annexure A-3, by which it was reported to the Tahsildar on 17.7.2005 that the appellant was in possession of the land and the land in question was under cultivation of appellant. Without considering this report the matter has been decided.

(v) That section 10(5) of the Act provides for issuance of notice by the competent authority for delivery of possession and in case after service of notice under section 10(5) of the Act, possession was not handed over then notice under section 10(6) of the Act was required, but in the present case no such notice was issued.

(vi) That there were two reports for taking possession dated 20.11.1988 and 8.2.1991. These reports show that in fact on 20.11.1988 possession was not taken over and similarly in view of specific report Annexure A-3 filed by the appellant, it is apparent that the proceedings dated 8.2.1991 were only paper proceedings.

(vii) That the possession was not taken over under section 10(5) of the Act so the proceedings before the competent authority shall be deemed to be pending immedia tely before the commencement of 'Repeal Act' and the said proceedings shall stand abated. Reliance was placed by the appellant on the judgment of Apex Court in Kishari Lal Vs. State ofM.P. and others [(2005) 3 SCC632], and of this Court in Sudhir Agrawal and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others [2004(3) MPHT 16 (NOC)], Ram Narain and others Vs. State of M.P., and another (2005(4) MPLJ 10 NOC) and it was submitted that this appeal be allowed, order of learned Single Judge be set aside, the appellant's petition be allowed directing abatement of proceedings against the appellant under the Act and respondents be directed not to interfere in the possession of appellant.

(3.)Shri Vijay Shukla, learned Deputy Advocate General raised following contentions :-
(i) That possession of the land was taken over long back in the year 1988 and in this regard the competent authority had recorded a finding in order Annexure A-l. Before taking possession the appellant was issued a due notice as required under section 10(5) of the Act, which was refused by the appellant and thereafter the possession of land was taken by the Revenue Officer.

(ii) That since 1988 the land is recorded in the name of State of M.P. The proceedings were concluded in the year 1988 itself and the appellant filed writ petition before the learned Single Judge on 25.10.2005. For a considerable long period of nearabout 17 years no steps were taken by the appellant challenging the proceedings of 1988 or for correction of the revenue record and after such long lapse of period the petition of appellant was rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Reliance was placed on the Apex Court judgment in Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs A. Viswam (AIR 1996 SC 3377) and it was submitted that appellant was dispossessed by following the due procedure of law, a memorandum / panchnama was prepared by the authority and the appellant's name was deleted from the revenue record. All these facts show that the proceedings were duly initiated against the appellant and he was dispossessed. That the provisions of sections 3(2) of the Act are not applicable as the possession was already taken over by the State from the appellant.

(iii) That so far as the abatement of proceedings is concerned, on 12.2.2000 no such proceedings were pending before any authority, so no question arises for abatement of proceedings.