The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the petitioner to the benefit of the Repeal Act, 1999 due to the State's failure to take possession of the surplus land, leading to the abatement of the ceiling proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976.

Krishna Murari and Amar Singh Chauhan, JJ.

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ, order or direction to declare the ceiling proceedings initiated against him and the order passed therein to have abated in accordance with the provisions of Repealing Act, 1999. Further prayer has been made to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to correct the entries in the revenue record.

2. The aforesaid relief is being claimed in the back-drop of the following facts.

3. Petitioner submitted his statement under Section 6 (1) of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 (herein after referred to as the 'Act 1976') in respect of his holdings. Case no. 439/51/82, State of U. P. Vs. Mohammad Ali was registered and it is alleged that by means of an exparte order dated 27.10.1983 under Section 8 (4) of the Act 1976, certain area of land of his holdings was declared surplus. Subsequently, proceedings under Section 10 (1) of the Act, 1976 were drawn and notice under Section 10 (3) was issued and finally notice under Section 10 (5) was issued.

4. It is further alleged that no further proceedings were taken and no effort was made to take possession of the land and the petitioner still continues in physical possession of the land in question.

5. It is relevant to quote the following averments made in paragraphs 7, 8, 10 and 11 of the writ petition :

"7. That no further action in the matter was taken by the respondents in the matter and no effort was ever made to take possession over the land in question."

"8. That all the aforesaid proceedings were exparte, no notices were ever served upon the petitioner and it is categorically stated that the actual physical possession of the said declared surplus land was never taken by any authority whatsoever and was with the petitioner when the Repealing Act came into force."

"10.That the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repealing Act, 1999 (Act No. 15 of 1999) and was adopted by the State of U. P. w. e. f. 18.03.1999."

"11. That according to section 3 and 4 of the Repealing Act all proceedings under the Principal Act shall stand abated if the possession of the land was has not been taken by the State at the date of the application of the Repealing Act."

6. While entertaining petition on 04.06.2008, this Court granted six weeks' time to the learned Standing Counsel to file counter affidavit. Order-sheet indicates that on 28.07.2015 as a last opportunity two weeks' and no more further time was allowed to the learned Standing Counsel to file counter affidavit and in order to do complete justice between the parties, the learned Standing Counsel was directed to produce the original record on 18.08.2015.

7. Today when the matter has been called out, learned Standing Counsel has expressed his inability to produce the original record. There is already a stop order passed on 28.07.2015 and opportunity was given to the State-respondents to produce the original record but the same has not been produced before us. Thus, the categorical averments made in the writ petition that actual physical possession was not taken by the State and the petitioner continues to retain possession of the surplus land remain unrebutted and there is no reason to disbelieve them. Since the petitioner continues to retain possession of the land declared surplus, he is entitled for the benefit of the provisions of Repeal Act, 1999.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in identical situation when no objection was filed to the affidavit stating that State has not taken over possession of the surplus land, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukarram Ali Khan Vs. State of U. P. and others, 2007 (4) AWC 3519 (SC) held that in view of the affidavit filed by the appellant to which no objection has been filed, undisputed position is that the State has not taken the possession over the surplus land. Therefore, the proceedings have