Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that deprivation of property rights must be in alignment with the procedure established by law, whilst considering a case before the court that involved proceedings under the ambit of the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960.
The Petitioner's predecessor was a Bhumiswami of agrarian dry land and in the year 1979, an order was passed against the petitioner asserting that a certain extent of the land was surplus. The proceedings for assuming control and eviction under the ambits Section 248 of the Revenue Code of Madhya Pradesh Land, 1959, were instituted by the respondents against the petitioner. hence t e petitioner filed a claim for a permanent injunction and proclamation of title about that same land. The Trial Court dismissed the aforementioned petition.
The Appellate Court overturned the Trial Court's decision and decided that the responsible authority had not complied with the statutory requirements laid down in Sections 11(3) and 11(4) of the referenced Act. It claimed that the petitioner was the Bhumiswami of the land that was declared as surplus and restrained the respondents from intervening with the petitioner’s ownership of the property. The High Court Allowing the second petition lodged by the respondents, overruled the Appellate Court's decision.
In subsequent appeal before the Supreme Court, the Three-Judge Bench comprising of Justices Dinesh Maheswari, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, and Hrishikesh Roy acknowledged that the respondents herein violated the very scheme of the Act in failure to comply with the statutory provisions. The Supreme court in this regard held that Article 300A of the Constitution of India which references the right to the property although is not a fundamental right it is a constitutional right the deprivation of this right hence can only be carried out only in compliance with the statutory provisions that are established by the Law. The said act is the law in this instance. Therefore, the provisions of the said Act would have to be met with to deprive a person of surplus property.
86540
103860
630
114
59824