Hon’ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J.—By these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought to challenge an order dated 10 May 2007 passed by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar holding that possession of the land declared surplus having been taken on 25 June 1993, the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 3 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, Repeal act (Act No 15 of 1999).

2. The dispute in the present case relates to land admeasuring 83423.42 sq meter situated in Village Taudhakpur, Pargana and District Kanpur Nagar. In pursuance of the return submitted by the petitioner who is the tenure holder, a draft statement under Section 8(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, Principal Act was issued. On 25 January 1983, an order was passed under Section 8(4) by which, after exempting an area admeasuring 1000 sq meter of land, 83423.42 sq meter was declared as surplus. Following the final draft statement, a notification under Section 10(1) was issued on 15 May 1985. Thereafter, a notification under Section 10(3) was issued and published in the official gazette on 2 June 1986. Upon the vesting of the land in the State Government under Section 10(3), a notice under Section 10(5) was issued on 25 February 1987. On 14 February 1992, the Competent Authority (Urban Land Ceiling), Kanpur addressed a communication to the Tehsildar, Kanpur Nagar recording that in pursuance of an earlier letter dated 25 February 1987, possession of the land be taken over and the land be mutated in the name of the State Government. The case of the State, which is disputed by the petitioner, is that on 25 June 1993, possession of the land was taken over which is prior to the enforcement of the Repeal Act. In a writ petition, (Writ Petition No. 47279 of 2002) filed by the petitioner before this Court after the enforcement of the Repeal Act, it was urged that the petitioner was still in possession over the land which was declared surplus and hence, following the Repeal Act, possession cannot be taken over from him. A Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 29 November 2006 directed that if the petitioner files a representation to the District Magistrate within a period of one month, the representation shall be decided within a period of three months from the date of its receipt. Until the disposal of the representation, parties were directed to maintain status quo. In pursuance of the order passed by the Division Bench, the petitioner was heard by the District Magistrate and an order was passed on 10 May 2007 holding that possession had already been taken over on 25 June 1993 and hence the petitioner would not be entitled to the benefit of the Repeal Act. The petitioner moved these proceedings in the month of July 2009 in order to challenge the order of the District Magistrate and for a mandamus restraining the respondents from dispossessing him from the land declared as surplus.

3. A counter affidavit was filed by the State on 14 September 2009. In the counter, it has been stated that a notification under Section 10(3) was published on 2 June 1986 following which a notice under Section 10(5) was issued on 25 February 1987. On 25 June 1993, it has been stated, possession was taken over, following which the amount quantified as compensation has been determined and a notice under Section 11 has been addressed to the tenure holder to file his objection to which no reply has been filed.

4. The issue which has been raised before the Court is whether, as a result of the repeal of the principal Act with effect from 18 March 1999, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of the Repeal Act. That, in turn, would depend on whether possession of the land was taken over by the State or by any person duly authorised prior to 18 March 1999. The case of the State which has been set out in a counter affidavit by the Jal Nigam, is that a