The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore has quashed long-running ceiling proceedings concerning land at Village Banediya, holding that the proceedings were initiated against a person who had already died and were also affected by jurisdictional and procedural defects.
Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt delivered the judgment on September 8, 2026, in a writ petition filed by Rajat Builders Private Limited through Mr Rajendra Beesani against the State of Madhya Pradesh.
Background Of The Case
The dispute arose from proceedings under the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960. The petitioner challenged an order dated June 27, 2025, by which its objections under Section 11(3) of the Act had been rejected.
The record showed that Sardar Madhavrao Kibe died on October 12, 1963, while the notice under Section 10 of the Ceiling Act was issued in his name on July 15, 1964. The petitioner also relied on the fact that possession of the property had allegedly been taken by the State in 1960, before the Act's appointed day.
The petitioner further argued that the property included Banediya Tank and that a tank could not be treated as “land” under Section 2(k) of the Ceiling Act. It also questioned the authority of the officer who initiated the proceedings and relied upon the statutory time limit under Section 11(9).
Court's Observations
The High Court held that the Section 10 notice was issued against a person who had already died, rendering the entire ceiling proceedings a nullity in law.
The Court observed:
“the notice issued to a dead person renders the proceedings a nullity in law. Therefore, no rights could accrue to the respondents on the basis of such a notice and, therefore, the entire proceeding is held to be a nullity.”
The Court also found that the petitioner had not been supplied the documents forming the basis of the proceedings in their entirety. It held that this affected the principles of natural justice.
The Court also accepted the objections concerning the status of the erstwhile owner as a “holder” on the appointed day, the inclusion of the tank within the definition of “land”, and the competent authority's jurisdiction under Section 11(9).
The State also opposed the writ petition on the ground that an alternative statutory remedy was available under the Ceiling Act. The High Court, however, held that the availability of an alternative remedy did not prevent it from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 where serious questions of jurisdiction and violation of natural justice arose. Since the Court found the notice issued to the deceased person to be a nullity, it considered the case appropriate for interference in writ jurisdiction.
Decision
The High Court therefore held that the availability of an alternative remedy did not bar exercise of writ jurisdiction in the present case, particularly in view of the questions relating to jurisdiction, natural justice and the validity of proceedings initiated against a deceased person.
The Court therefore allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated June 27, 2025. It also granted reliefs sought under clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the petition and directed the respondent authorities to make the necessary amendments in the revenue records expeditiously. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
Case Title: Rajat Builders Private Limited Through Mr Rajendra Beesani v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 37132 of 2025
Judge: Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt
Decision Date: September 8, 2026
