Ceiling On Agricultural Holdings Act | MP High Court Directs Authority To Decide 14-Yr-Old Case, Says Pendency Defeats Purpose Of Remand
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the Settlement Commissioner to expedite the resolution of a 14-year-old case concerning the determination of agricultural ceiling limits under the MP Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960.In doing so the court observed that the prolonged pendency of such proceedings defeats the very purpose of a remand and causes unavoidable hardships to...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the Settlement Commissioner to expedite the resolution of a 14-year-old case concerning the determination of agricultural ceiling limits under the MP Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960.
In doing so the court observed that the prolonged pendency of such proceedings defeats the very purpose of a remand and causes unavoidable hardships to the concerned parties.
The bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke observed;
"Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the matter was remanded by the Board of Revenue as far back as 10.07.2012 with a specific stipulation for its conclusion within four months. Admittedly, the proceedings are still pending consideration before the competent authority. Pendency of such proceedings for an unduly prolonged period defeats the very purpose of remand and causes avoidable hardship to the parties concerned".
The case involved the legal heirs of Late Shahjirao Angre, which has been pending since a Board of Revenue order of July 10, 2012, which remanded the matter for fresh adjudication following an appeal and revision by the State.
The original order of the Settlement Commissioner of November 21, 2010, had held that the majority of the land in question was non-agricultural and that the remaining agricultural land fell within the statutory ceiling limits.
The court noted that over 14 years had passed since the remand, and the proceedings had remained undecided despite the Board of Revenue directing a conclusion within four months back in 2012. The court stated,
"Such inordinate, unexplained, and unjustified delay has caused serious prejudice to the petitioners and amounts to a denial of their valuable right to expeditious justice".
The court observed that such prolonged delays defeat the purpose of remand and cause unavoidable hardships to the concerned parties.
Thus, without commenting on the merits of the dispute, the bench directed, "the present petition stands disposed of with a direction to the Settlement Commissioner/respondent No.2 to take up the remanded proceedings forthwith and decide the same strictly in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order".
Thus, the petition was disposed of.
Case Title: Smt Jyotsana Raja Angre v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-15776-2026
For Petitioner: Advocate Siddharth Sijoria
For State: Government Advocate Sohit Mishra