By the Court.—Heard Sri Madhu Sudan Dixit, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Prashant Mathur, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State respondents.

2. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution, petitioners are seeking relief for issue of writ of mandamus directing respondents not to interfere with their possession in pursuance of ceiling proceedings that had taken place in respect of land in question.

3. Petitioner’s claim that inspite of land being declared ‘surplus’ under U.P. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1976”) actual physical possession thereof was not taken and in the meantime U.P. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “Repeal Act, 1999”) intervened abating all ceiling proceedings. Thus petitioners claim benefit of Repeal Act, 1999.

4. The case set up by the petitioners in the writ petition is that proceedings under Act, 1976 were initiated and tenure-holder Natthu, father of petitioners filed return under Section 6 (1) of Act, 1976. Aforesaid proceedings culminated in order dated 11.10.1982 passed by Competent Authority Urban Land Ceiling, Saharanpur, respondent-3 under Section 8(4) of Act, 1976, declaring 15759.47 square meter of land surplus. It is said that aforesaid order was illegal and without jurisdiction. The land owner Natthu remained in possession and possession was not taken by the respondents. After death of Natthu, petitioners have succeeded the aforesaid land and are in possession. No notice under Section 10(5) or 10(6) was ever issued and in the meantime in 1999 when Repeal Act, 1999 came into force, entire ceiling proceedings stood abated and hence now respondents cannot interfere in possession of petitioners in respect of aforesaid disputed land. Pursuant to order dated 11.10.1982, it is said that respondents directed authority concerned to make necessary correction in revenue record. The respondents be directed to refrain from interfering in peaceful possession of petitioners over land in dispute with regard to possession relevant statements have been made in paragraphs 09, 10, 11, 12, 13 of writ petition read as under:

“9. That thereafter the tenure holder natthu remained in possession and sate or its agency never took possession of land in dispute.

10. That the petitioners father was in possession of property in dispute and no notice under Section 10 (5) of the Ceiling Act was served on the father of the petitioners as per the provision of Ceiling Act.

11. That late Natthu never gave any possession of the vacant land as such any compensation as per Section 11 of Ceiling Act was given to the late Natthu nor any compensation was calculated by the state Government.

12. That late Natthu has four sons being mohd. Ikram, Mohd. Islam, Abdul Khalik and Abdul Malik. However Mohd. Islam is now dead and survived by his wife Bano as Mohd. Islam died issueless.

13. That after the death of late Natthu the petitioners are in actual physical possession of the land declared vacant.”

5. Initially, despite time having been granted respondents chose not to file counter-affidavit, hence Court passed order dated 30.8.2017 which reads as under:

“Learned Standing Counsel may produce the original record and register of the matter within next three weeks.

List after three weeks on 21.9.2017.”

6. Thereafter, it appears that record was produced before Court (Bench comprising Hon’ble Bharti Sapru J. and Hon’ble Mahboob Ali J.) on 21.9.2017, when Court made its observation as under and fixed the matter for 23.10.2017.

“The record has come. The record reflects that the proceedings under Section 10 (6) of the U.P. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 have been undertaken on 20.6.1993.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner may seek his instructions.

List this matter on 23rd October, 2017.

The record may be brought on