Saif Malick (Lrs)Late. Smt.Rafiunnisa vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided on
16-03-2026

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21890
1 WP-9433-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
th
ON THE 16 OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 9433 of 2012
SAIF MALICK (LRS)LATE. SMT.RAFIUNNISA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Imtiaz Husain - Senior Advocate with Mohd. Sajid Khan -
Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Anshuman Swamy - Govt. Advocate for State.
ORDER
The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioners by
challenging the legality, validity and propriety of impugned order dated
05.04.2012 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the State Government, whereby the
competent Revenue Authority has been directed to delete the name of
petitioners and other persons and initiate the proceedings for dispossession.
Petitioners further challenged the said proceedings of dispossession.
2. Learned senior counsel has advanced the arguments that the
petitioners are the owners and possession holder of the lands bearing Khasra
No.134/1/1 ad-measuring 1.50 acres, Khasra No.134/1/2 ad-measuring 2.50
acres and Khasra No.134/2/2 ad-measuring 8 acres; total 12 acres situated at
Village Kheritappa, Badbai, Tehsil Gauharganj, District Raisen (M.P.),
which was purchased by them vide registered sale deed and after purchasing
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHIBA NARAYAN
BISWAL
Signing time: 3/17/2026
10:41:20 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21890
2 WP-9433-2012
the said land, petitioners duly mutated their names in the revenue

records. The State-respondent has issued a notice to the petitioners in the
month of February, 2012 (Annexure-P-18) and other similarly situated
person to explain why name of the petitioners and other person have not
been deleted and proceedings of dispossession have not been initiated. The
petitioners on receiving the said notice, submitted an application before the
State-respondent on 14.03.2012 for seeking documents enabling them to file
reply and to give explanation. The State-respondent without deciding the said
application as well as without providing required documents, passed the
impugned order dated 05.04.2012 (Annexure-P/1) thereby directing the
competent Revenue Authority to delete the names of petitioners and other
person and initiate the proceedings for dispossession. The impugned order
and action of the State-respondent seriously suffers from principles of natural
justice. Thus, learned senior counsel for the petitioners prays for allowing the
petition and setting-aside the impugned order and the proceedings of
dispossession initiated in pursuance of said order dated 05.04.2012.
3. On receiving the notice, the State Government filed the reply
wherein, it is held that the land in question in the year 1968-1969 was owned
and possessed by Mahmood Ali S/o Sadiq Ali Pathan, who migrated from
India. The State Government being custodian of said land allotted the same
to Jeevan Das S/o Sewak Ram Sindhi and Jeevan Das sold the said land of
Najmunnisa and Sharafat Ali in the year 1981 and subsequently, petitioners
have purchased the land. When this fact came in the knowledge of the State
Government, then proceedings under the provisions of Displaced Persons
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHIBA NARAYAN
BISWAL
Signing time: 3/17/2026
10:41:20 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21890
3 WP-9433-2012
(Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 were initiated in the year 1983

and pending before the State Authority. Subsequently, vide Notification
No.38/2005 of Central Government, the said Amendment Act was repealed
th
on 05 September, 2005. Therefore, the proceedings could not be initiated
and subsequently, the proceeding has initiated in the year 2011-2012. Notice
was issued to the petitioners and after affording ample opportunity of being
heard, the impugned order has been passed. Under the provisions of said Act
1954, the property could not be sold prior to issuance of self certificate.
Thus, the sale deed in favour of the petitioners and their predecessors is
nullity and no right has been created in favour of the petitioners, thus leaned
counsel for the State prays for dismissing the petition.
4. At the time of argument, learned counsel for the petitioners has
argued that the petitioners were in possession over the land in question since
1985 and their name were duly recorded. The respondents have issued notice
for seeking explanation for deleting their names as well as initiating
proceedings of dispossession. The petitioners by submitting an application
requested to supply relevant documents but the documents have not been
supplied and without providing ample opportunity of being heard, the
impugned order has been passed. The State Government has initiated the
proceedings under the provisions of Act, 1954 which repeals subsequently,
in the year 2005 without making any provision in respect of pending
proceedings under the said Act and therefore, the proceedings would be
dropped automatically way back in the year 2005 and after expiry of more
than 6 to 7 years, the proceedings were initiated and the impugned order has
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHIBA NARAYAN
BISWAL
Signing time: 3/17/2026
10:41:20 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21890
4 WP-9433-2012
been passed without assigning any reasons that under which provisions,

proceedings were initiated.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State has argued that
once under the provisions of Act 1954, the sale deed of the petitioners is not
having any legal sanctity in absence of certificate of said Act, thus, no right
accrues in favour of the petitioners. In pursuance to notice, petitioners
appeared before the Court and they have not filed any document in support
of their defence but on asking specific query, learned counsel for the
respondent has fairly admitted the fact that the petitioners have submitted an
application for supplying the required documents but the said application has
not been dealt and decided.
6. Heard the counsel for the parties.
7. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have purchased the land in
question in the year 1985 vide registered sale deed from Sharafat Ali and
Smt. Najmunnisa who purchased the said land from Jeevan Das. Initially, the
said property was owned and possessed by Mahmood Ali S/o Sadiq Ali who
migrated from India and the land belonging to him was allotted to Jeevan
Das and Jeevan Das sold the property and proceedings under the provisions
of said Act, 1954 were initiated in the year 1993 but due to repeal of said
Act, 1954, in the year 2005, the said proceedings come to an end without
taking any final decision and without making any provision in respect of
pending proceedings. After 6 to 7 years, proceedings were initiated in a hurry
manner without supplying the relevant documents and without providing
ample opportunity of being heard, the impugned order has been passed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHIBA NARAYAN
BISWAL
Signing time: 3/17/2026
10:41:20 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21890
5 WP-9433-2012
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it

cannot be held that the impugned order and proceedings of dispossession
initiated in pursuance to the said order are justifiable.
9. Thus, the instant petition filed by the petitioners is allowed. The
impugned order passed by the State Government and the subsequent
proceedings of dispossession initiated in pursuance to the said order are also
hereby set aside.
10. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of.
11. However, the State Government is granted liberty to initiate the
proceedings further in accordance with law.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT)
JUDGE
Biswal

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHIBA NARAYAN
BISWAL
Signing time: 3/17/2026
10:41:20 AM