A more than six-decade-old land ceiling proceeding has been quashed after the Madhya Pradesh High Court found that a notice had been issued to a man who had already died, besides failure to follow mandatory procedure, denial of relevant documents, and lack of proper reasons in the final order.Justice Sandeep N Bhatt was hearing a challenge to a June 27, 2025 order rejecting a private construction company’s objection in ceiling proceedings concerning around 1,501 bighas of land in Banediya village, including Banediya Tank in Indore district.“The notice issued to a dead person renders the proceedings a nullity in law…I find that the impugned order has been passed by the respondent/authorities in utter violation of the principles of natural justice and in a completely mechanical manner without due application of mind, that too against a dead person, as proceedings initiated against a dead person should be considered in nullity,” September 8.The proceedings traced back to the early 1960s and involved a long chain of civil litigation, appeals and subsequent ceiling proceedings over the land. Justice Sandeep N Bhatt said proceedings against a dead person are a nullity and found procedural lapses. (Image enhanced using AI)Notice after owner’s deathAccording to the order, the state took possession of the property on May 30, 1960. The Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 came into force on November 15, 1961. The original owner, Madhav Rao Kibe, died on October 12, 1963. However, a revenue report was submitted on June 9, 1964, followed by a notice under Section 10 of the Ceiling Act in Kibe’s name on July 15, 1964.His legal representatives filed a civil suit on November 12, 1964, seeking possession. The suit was decreed on May 7, 1966, directing the state to restore possession of the land. The state’s first appeal was dismissed in 1969 and its second appeal was dismissed in 1982.Also Read | Newspaper report sparks teacher FIR, Madhya Pradesh High Court quashes cheating caseIn 1991, the Supreme Court awarded Rs 25,000 in compensation, with 12 per cent interest. The company bought the rights to this amount in 1994. The ceiling proceedings restarted in 1999, with a draft statement prepared in April 2000 and the final statement issued in May that year. The legal heirs later challenged the proceedings. Their case was dismissed in 2005, but an appeal filed in 2024 was partly allowed in December 2024.Story continues below this adThe company filed an objection under the ceiling law. The collector rejected it on June 27, 2025, leading the company to approach the high court. The petitioner argued that the Ceiling Act was not applicable, the tank was outside the statutory definition of “land”, the competent authority lacked jurisdiction, and the Section 10 notice was invalid because it was issued to a dead person.Multiple procedural defectsThe high court held that the notice issued to Kibe in 1964, after he died in 1963, rendered the proceedings a nullity. The court also found that documents forming the basis of the proceedings had not been supplied to the petitioner in their entirety, resulting in violation of the principles of natural justice to some extent.The high court accepted the petitioner’s contention that the competent authority had lost its mandate to continue the proceedings under Section 11(9) of the Ceiling Act. It rejected the state’s argument that the objection could not be raised by the subsequent purchaser because it had not been raised by the original owner.The court further held that on the appointed day, the erstwhile owner was not the “holder” of the land. It noted that he had already been dispossessed by the state in 1960, before the Ceiling Act came into force.On Banediya Tank, the court said it could “by no stretch of imagination” be included in the definition of “land” under the relevant provision of the Ceiling Act.Story continues below this adThe high court also faulted the June 27, 2025 order for lacking proper findings and reasons, observing, “Proper reasons are the essence of any judgment or order.” It said the Ceiling Act’s social welfare purpose did not permit authorities to ignore mandatory procedure.