Back
2018 Supreme(All) 292
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
SUDHIR AGARWAL AND SHASHI KANT, JJ.
LALJI - Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF Uttar Pradesh AND OTHERS - Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31947 of 2015, decided on 30th January, 2018)
Counsel :
Atul Kumar Srivastava and Vinod Kumar for the Petitioner; C.S.C. and Ram Raj Singh for the Respondents.
Headnote:Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976—Sections 8(3), 8(4), 10(5) and 6(1)—Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999—Sections 3 and 4—Urban Land Ceiling—Actual physical possession—Deemed possession—Abatement of proceedings—Theory of deemed possession not applicable unless shown that actual physical possession of land in dispute was taken by respondents at any point of time before enforcement of Repeal Act, 1999 on 18.3.1999—“Actual physical possession” can be taken from person in occupation only after notice under Section 10(5) is issued—For purpose of Section 3 of 1999 Act, it is de facto dispossession which is relevant—If a person has been dispossessed and land has already vested under Section 10(3) of 1976 Act, Section 3 of Repeal Act will not help erstwhile land owner—Neither factum of taking actual physical possession by Competent Authority under Ceiling Act has been fortified by placing any document nor factum of possession of ADA has been shown—Respondents failed to prove that possession of disputed land was taken before cut-off date under Repeal Act of 1999—Held that possession of disputed land has not been taken by respondents, hence, ceiling proceedings stood abated. [Paras 13 to 39]
Result; Petition Allowed.
Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. The sole petitioner Lalji Son of late Sunder has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking a mandamus commanding respondents not to interfere in physical possession of petitioner over part of Plot No. 207 area i.e. 723.46 Sq.M. and Plot No. 134 Mi area 988.38 Sq.M., Plot No. 205/2Mi area 152.05 Sq. M., Plot No. 548/4 area 323.13 Sq.M., Plot No. 565 area 76.03 Sq.M., Plot No. 643/1 area 114.04 Sq.M., total 1653.63, 1/2 of 1653.63 = 826.82 + 723.46 = 1550.68 Sq.M.; part of Plot No. 127 i.e. 507.17 Sq.M., Plot No. 134 Mi. Area 988.38 Sq.M., Plot No. 205/2 Mi area 152.05 Sq.M., Plot No. 548/4 area 323.13 sq.M., Plot No. 565/2 area 76.03 Sq.M. and Plot No. 643/1 area 114.04 Sq.M. total 1653.63, half of 1653.63 i.e. 826.82 Total 1333.99 Sq.M.(826.82 + 507.17); and Plot No. 209 area 262.17 Sq.M., Plot No. 143 area 62.72 Sq.M., Plot No. 141 area 575.92 Sq.M. and One-third of Plot No. 134 area 1482.56 Sq.M., Plot No. 205/2 area 223.09 Sq.M., Plot No. 548 area 779.30 Sq.M., Plot No. 548/2 area 133.05 Sq.M., Plot No. 548/3 area 114.04 Sq.M., Plot No. 565 area 114.04 Sq.M. total 2851.08 (One third of 2851.08 i.e. 950.36 Total 1851.17 Sq.M. (262.17 + 62.72 + 575.92 + 950.36) situated in Mauza Mavaiya, Pargana-Arail, Tahsil Karchhana, District Allahabad since actual physical possession of aforesaid land was not taken by respondents despite declaration of land surplus under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1976”) and proceedings had abated after enactment of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the “Repeal Act, 1999”).
3. The facts in brief as stated in the writ petition are that petitioner is owner of land in dispute situated in village Mavaiya, Pargana - Arail, Tehsil Karchhana, District Allahabad. Proceedings under Act, 1976 were initiated by Competent Authority, Urban Ceiling, Varanasi by issuing notice under Section 8(3) of Act, 1976 and thereafter an order was passed under Section 8(4) of Act, 1976 on 26.11.1984 declaring total 1550.68 Sq.M., 1333.99 Sq.M. and 1851.17 Sq.M. of land, surplus. No compensation was paid to petitioner. A notice under Section 10(5) of Act, 1976 was issued, but actual physical possession was not taken by respondents and it continued with petitioner after enforcement of Repeal Act, 1999. Thus, by virtue of Section 3 of Repeal Act, 1999, ceiling proceedings stood abated and thereafter respondents had no authority to interfere with possession of petitioner over land in dispute.
4. Alleging that respondents are now attempting to evict petitioner from land in dispute, present writ petition has been filed with relief, as noticed above.
5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents -2 and 3 sworn by Sri Laxmi Shankar Singh, Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Allahabad. It is stated therein that as per declaration made by petitioner Lalji, his brother Bhulai and father Sunder under Section 6(1) of Act, 1976, survey was conduced and thereafter order under Section 8(4) of Act, 1976 was passed on 26.11.1984 declaring total 1550.68, 1333.99 and 1851.17 Sq. M. of land surplus in respect to plots No. 207, 134Mi, 205/2Mi, 548/4, 565, 643/1, 127, 209, 143 and 141. After completion of proceedings under Section 9 of Act, 1976, notifications under Section 10(1) and 10(3) of Act, 1976 were published in the Gazette dated 30.6.1986 and 23.3.1996. Thereafter, notice for voluntarily possession under Section 10(5) of Act, 1976 was issued to petitioner on 24.5.1996. It is further stated that as per Government Order dated 11.12.1996, aforesaid surplus land was transferred to Allahabad Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “ADA”) and in Revenue record also mutation was made accordingly. These very facts have been repeated in various paragraphs of counter-affidav
