A. K. YOG, B. B. AGARWAL, JJ.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri Mansoor Ahmad learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. K. Chaubey learned standing Counsel appearing for all the respondents.

( 2 ) CHABI Nath son of Sraju Prasad has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india claiming a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere with their physical possession over plots No. 68 and 68 (part) situate in village Mawaiya Tahsil Karchhana district Allahabad measuring 7184. 77 sq. meters declared surplus under order dated January 27, 1981 passed by the then Competent authority under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation ) Act, 1976 "called the Act" filed as annexure "2" to the petition, as also a writ of mandamus commanding respondent No. 3/competent Authority under the Act to delete the name of State government from the revenue records and substitute the name of the petitioner in respect of the land in question which was declared surplus.

( 3 ) THE case of the Petitioner is that his land was declared surplus by he Competent Authority under the Act. The petitioner claims that he is Bhumidhar of the agricultural land in question and is using it for agricultural purposes for more than 35 years. According to him, certain trees also stand on the said plot. It is admitted that some action was taken under Section 8 (3) of the Act by issuing notice but petitioner has submitted its reply dated 16. 10. 1980 (annexure 1 to the petition ). In the said reply the an petitioner has again reiterated the above facts including the fact that he is carrying on agricultural activities on the said land.

( 4 ) PETITIONER has categorically stated in paras 5 and 6 of the petition that no show cause notice was served upon him to hand over physical possession by the Collector and physical possession of the land so declared surplus has never been taken by the Competent Authority or the Collector allahabad. He reiterates that while proceedings were initiated under Section 10 (1), 10 (3) and 10 (5) of the Act, no notice was served up on the petitioner and he continued in defacto physical possession of the land in question. The petitioner goes on stating that the petitioner was and is always in actual possession over the land and using it for agricultural purposes till today and over part of the aforesaid plot 22 trees of Mango and Mahuwa are still existing.

( 5 ) WHILE this writ petition was initially presented, a Division Bench of this Court passed an interim order and while granting time to the Standing Counsel to file counter affidavit, it directed:"

In the meanwhile, the petitioner shall not be ejected from the land in question. "

( 6 ) NO counter affidavit has been filed. The writ petition was admitted and time was again granted to the respondents for filing counter affidavit. The Court, this time, by the order dated 12. 01. 2005 directed:"

Until further order, if petitioner has not been dispossessed in pursuance to the proceedings under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976, the respondents shall not interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner. "

( 7 ) NO counter affidavit has been filed even today. Averments made in writ petition stand unrebutted.

( 8 ) LEARNED Standing Counsel has, however, submitted that in view of the relief claimed in the writ petition, (as noted above) the petitioner cannot claim benefit of the Urban Land (Ceiling and regulation) Repeal Act, 1999; copy of which has been filed as annexure "3" to the petition.

8. In this context, we deem it proper to deal with the relevant provisions of the Act as well as the repeal Act so that there remains no ambiguity or uncertainty with regard to the effect of issuance of the notification under Section 10 of the Act. Relevant extract of Sections 3 and 4 of the Repeal Act read: 3. SAVINGS:- (1) The repeal of the Principal Act shall not affect: (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Click Here to Read the rest of this document