SUDHIR AGARWAL, AJIT KUMAR
RAISUDDIN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent
By the Court.—Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondents.
2. Petitioners, claiming benefit of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the “Repeal Act, 1999”), have filed present writ petition stating that “actual physical possession” of land in dispute was not taken till enactment of Act, 1999, therefore, proceedings initiated under Section 6(1) of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1976”) have abated and now petitioners cannot be dispossessed from land in dispute which is still in their possession.
3. The case set up by petitioners who are three real brothers, sons of Rafiuddin, is, that land, i.e., Plot No. 384M, Khata No. 287 situated in village Dhakka, Pargana, Tehsil and District Moradabad was recorded in the name of their father, Rafiuddin in Revenue record. Proceedings under Act, 1976 were initiated by Competent Authority and vide order dated 17.4.1989, passed under Section 8(4) read with Section 9 of Act, 1976, 1632.19 sq. meter of land was declared surplus. Mutation in Revenue record by removing name
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.