By the Court.—Heard Sri R.C. Singh, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for Kanpur Development Authority and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General for State respondents.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed seeking relief in the nature of mandamus directing respondent-State authorities including the Kanpur Development Authority not to interfere with the possession of petitioners over plot Nos. 597, 673, 870 and 594 area 70855.40 square meters situate in Village Bara Sirohi, Pargana and Tehsil Kanpur on the plea that in view of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Repeal Act’), the entire ceiling proceedings have stood abated.

3. The contention of petitioners is that since actual possession of land, declared as surplus, has not been taken from petitioners, they would be entitled to the benefit of Repeal Act. It is further contended that the alleged possession memo which is claimed to be a document evidencing factum of delivery of possession in favour of State is forged and manipulated document and does not bear the signatures of their father Ram Singh who was the original tenure holder. The petitioners contend that they continued to be in possession as on the date of enactment of Repeal Act.

4. In order to appreciate the factual controversy about the ceiling proceedings in the instant case and as to whether these proceedings came to their logical end in terms of delivery of possession of the land in favour of the State, it is necessary to refer to the pleadings of the petitioners raised in the writ petition as well as the averments made in the counter-affidavit in reply thereof. The relevant paragraphs of the writ petition are 8 to 12, 16 and 22 which are quoted hereunder:

“8. That it appears that the Prescribed Authority, Urban Ceiling issued notice dated 15.1.1986 under Section 10(5) of the Act enjoining the petitioners’ father Sri Ram Singh to voluntarily surrender the possession of plot i.e. 598, 673, 870 & 594 failing which forceful possession would be taken under Section 10(6). Photo/true copy of the notice dated 15.1.1986 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure 5 to this writ petition.

9. That it is categorically stated that the petitioners’ father did not voluntarily surrender the possession of plot Nos. 598, 673, 870 & 594 to the Prescribed Authority or Kanpur Development Authority or an officer appointed by them and that the petitioners’ father Ram Singh continued in possession and that they are still continuing in possession

10. That the petitioner’s father Sri Ram Singh died on 12.12.1996 leaving behind the petitioners as his heirs and legal representatives. Upon death of Sri Ram Singh petitioners came down in possession.

11. That it is categorically stated that petitioners’ father neither did surrender the possession nor did respondents take forceful possession, however a memo of possession (Dakhalnama) is said to have been prepared on 16.3.1988. It is also categorically stated that the said memo of possession does not bear the signature of petitioner’s father. Petitioners’ father was semi literate. He some how make the signature in Hindi he did not know English. The alleged memo of possession does not bear the full particular of the witness. Photo/true copy of the alleged memo of possession dated 16.3.1988 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure 6 to this writ petition.

12. That in 1418-1423 Fasli Amaldaramad of various orders have been made against Khata No. 2. The said khatauni mentions the plots which have been given to the Kanpur Development Authority under Section 117 Ka of U.P. Zamindari Land Abolition Act are recorded in Khata No. 2. It is submitted that against plot Nos. 598, 673, 870 and 594 no amaldaramad of any order is made. To corroborate the said facts, the petitioner brings on record photocopy of the khatauni 1418/1423 Fasli as annexed as Annexure 7 to this writ petition.

16