Hon’ble Sheo Kumar Singh-I, J.—By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 3.10.1995 issued by the competent authority relating to making of entries in Khatauni of the land bearing Khasra No. 878/3903.55 as well as Khasra No. 189/600.83 situate at village Bharwara, Pargana, Tehsil and District Lucknow, and further issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to restore the name of the petitioner over Khasra/Khatauni and not to make any interference in his peaceful possession over the land in question.

2. Brief facts giving rise to filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was recorded land owner of the land mentioned above with transferable rights but without any notice or proceeding or opportunity of hearing, he has been deprived of the legitimate right of the land which has been declared by the competent authority as surplus ceiling land. By the impugned order, the land of the petitioner was declared as surplus land while it is version of the petitioner that notice under Sections 10(5) and 10(6) was not issued to him and he was not given any opportunity of hearing.

3. By filing the counter-affidavit it has been submitted that opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and notice under Section 10(5) has already been issued and served by registered A.D.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the land in question has been declared surplus under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. The purpose of the Act has been narrated as follows :

i. To prevent concentration of urban property in the hands of a few persons and speculation and profiteering therein;

ii. To bring about socialization of urban land in urban agglomerations to subserve the common good by ensuring its equitable distribution;

iii. To discourage construction of luxury housing leading to conspicuous consumption of scarce building materials and to ensure the equitable utilization of such materials; and

iv. To secure orderly urbanization.

And the Bill mainly provides for the following:

i. Imposition of a ceiling on both ownership and possession of vacant land in urban agglomerations, the ceiling being on a graded basis according to the classification of the urban agglomeration;

ii. Acquisition of the excess vacant land by the State Government with powers to dispose of the vacant land to subserve the common good;

iii. Payment of an amount for the acquisition of the excess vacant land in cash and in bonds;

iv. Granting exemptions in respect of certain specific categories of vacant land;

v. Regulating the transfer of vacant land within the ceiling limit;

vi. Regulating the transfer of urban or urbanizable land with any building (whether constructed before or after the commencement of the proposed legislation) for a period of ten years from the commencement of the legislation or the construction of the building whichever is later;

vii. Restricting the plinth area for the construction of future residential building;

viii. Other procedural and miscellaneous matters.

In light of above, the Act of 1976 was enacted.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the matter is question is governed by Sections 10(3), 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act of 1976, which on reproduction read as :

“10 (3) At any time after the publication of the notification under sub-section (1), the competent authority may, by notification published in the Official Gazette of the State concerned, declare that the excess vacant land referred to, in the notification published under sub-section (1) shall, with effect from such date as may be specified in the declaration, be deemed to have been acquired by the State Government and upon the publication of such declaration, such land shall be deemed to have vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances with effect from th