JUDGMENT :

1. Leave granted.

2. Whether the proceedings initiated by the Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, 'the 1976 Act') determination of the surplus land of the Appellant abated with the coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (for short, 'the 1999 Act') because possession of the surplus land had not been taken is the question which arises for consideration in this appeal filed against order dated 15.2.2011 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 23229/2008.

3. The Appellant is the owner of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 296, 534, 535 and 559, Village Haru Nagla, Pargana and Tehsil Bareilly. After enforcement of the 1976 Act in the State of Uttar Pradesh, he filed a declaration Under Section 6(1) of that Act. The Competent Authority prepared draft statement and issued notice Under Section 8(3) proposing to declare 7337.39 square meters as surplus land. The Appellant filed objections dated 16.12.1981 in the form of an affidavit along with copy of an application made by him Under Section 20 for grant of exemption on the ground that he and his family is solely dependent on the agricultural operations being undertaken by them. After considering the same, the Competent Authority passed order dated 18.5.1982 Under Section 8(4) and confirmed the draft statement. However, the concerned officer stayed the acquisition proceedings on the premise that the application filed by the Appellant Under Section 20 of the 1976 Act was pending consideration.

4. The order passed by the Competent Authority Under Section 8(4) of the 1976 Act was followed by notifications dated 24.8.1982 and 17.7.1985 issued Under Section 10(1) and 10(3) respectively. By the second notification, it was declared that the surplus land will be deemed to have vested in the State. On 20.2.1986, the Competent Authority issued notice to the Appellant Under Section 10(5) requiring him to handover possession of the surplus land within 30 days with an indication that if he fails to do so, proceedings will be initiated Under Section 10(6). It is not clear from the record whether or not the notice was served upon the Appellant, but this much is evident that after a long time gap of three years and four months, Tehsildar, Bareilly prepared Possession Certificate (Dakhalnama) dated 30.1.1990 to show that possession of the surplus land had been taken in the presence of one Horilal. After another 10 years, the Competent Authority issued notice Under Section 11(8) of the 1976 Act for the purpose of determining the compensation payable in respect of the surplus land.

5. The Appellant filed Writ Petition No. 23229/2008 for quashing order dated 18.5.1982. He pleaded that even though the Competent Authority had passed an order Under Section 8(4), possession of the surplus land continued with him and it was only in April, 2008 that an attempt was made by the revenue officials to dispossess him compelling him to approach the Court. He further pleaded that Dakhalnama dated 30.1.1990 does not bear his signatures and the land was still in his possession. Another plea taken by the Appellant was that the provisions of the 1976 Act could not have been invoked by the Competent Authority because he was using the land for agricultural purposes and the application filed by him Under Section 20 of that Act was still pending.

6. In the written statement filed on behalf of the Respondents it was pleaded that the Appellant was guilty of laches inasmuch as he had approached the Court after 26 years of the passing of order Under Section 8(4) of the 1976 Act. They also pleaded that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed because the Appellant had failed to avail the statutory alternative remedy of appeal available Under Section 33 of the 1976 Act. The Respondents controverted the Appellant's assertion that he was still in possession of the surplus land and pleaded that after the