Back
2019 Supreme(All) 1812
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, JJ.
Ikrar And Others - Appellant
Vs.
State Of U.P. And Others - Respondent
Writ C No. 36346 of 2014
Decided On : 06-11-2019
Madhusudan Dixit, Adv., Satyendra Pratap Singh, Adv., S.P. Singh, Adv.
Headnote:
Urban Land Ceiling Act - Possession - Section 10(5), Section 10(6) - [The judgment discusses the possession of land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, specifically focusing on the provisions of Section 10(5) and Section 10(6). The court analyzes the procedure for peaceful and forceful dispossession and emphasizes the importance of following the statutory requirements for taking possession of surplus land. The judgment highlights the significance of the directions issued by the State Government under Section 35 of the Act, 1976, and the legal implications of possession taken by unauthorized authorities. The court refers to various precedents and legal principles established by the Supreme Court and the High Court in similar cases.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the order rejecting their representation and sought direction to prevent interference in their possession over the land declared vacant under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The petitioners claimed that no notice of possession was served upon them, and they were in complete physical possession of the land. The court analyzed the possession memo and the authority responsible for taking possession, emphasizing the lack of compliance with statutory requirements.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the possession of the surplus land was taken by an unauthorized authority, the Tehsildar, and not in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 10(5) and Section 10(6) of the Act, 1976. The court also noted the absence of evidence demonstrating the lawful transfer of possession to the Saharanpur Development Authority. As a result, the court held that the ceiling proceedings stood lapse, and the petitioners were entitled to the land declared surplus.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the validity of the possession of the surplus land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The court examined whether the possession was taken in compliance with the statutory provisions of Section 10(5) and Section 10(6) and whether the transfer of possession to the Saharanpur Development Authority was lawful.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the statutory provisions of Section 10(5) and Section 10(6) of the Act, 1976, and the established legal principles regarding peaceful and forceful dispossession. The court emphasized the significance of following the directions issued by the State Government under Section 35 of the Act, 1976, and the procedural requirements for taking possession of surplus land.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order rejecting the petitioners' representation and allowed the writ petition, holding that the ceiling proceedings stood lapse, and the petitioners were entitled to the land declared surplus. The petitioners were granted relief, and the order impugned was set aside.
JUDGMENT :
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.
Present petition has been filed assailing the order dated 5.5.2014 passed by Collector, Saharanpur rejecting the representation of petitioners, as well as for seeking direction upon the respondents not to interfere in possession over Khasra No.12M and 19M measuring 11479.47 sq.mtr situated in Village Fatehpur Jat, District Saharanpur and also for direction to correct revenue records, and record names of petitioners over the land declared vacant in proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short "Act No.33 of 1976").
2. Brief facts which emerges from the material on record, are that petitioners who are 6 in numbers are sons of late Iqbal, who filed statement under Section 6(1) of the Act, stating that plot no.12 and 19 were his agricultural land and was outside the purview of Act of 1976. Notices under Section 8(3) of the Act was issued on 17.8.1978 stating that out of total area of land measuring 13479.47 sq. mtr., 11479.47 sq. mtr. was being declared surplus leaving behind 2000 sq. mtr. in khasra no.12M and 19M in village- Fatehpur Jat. On 26.10.1978, the competent authority declared the aforesaid land as vacant.
3. Notification under Section 10(1) was made on 29.11.1978 and under Section 10(3) on 20.02.1990. Notices u/s. 10(5) were issued on 15.04.1993, however, according to petitioners, the said notices were never served upon them. It is further averred that father of the petitioners till his death, sowed his crop over the land, which is evident from khasra of year 2010-11 and was in complete physical possession over the land. It has further been stated that no notice u/s. 10(6) of the Act was issued by respondents for forceful dispossession of their late father, nor he was dispossessed from the land in question, and they are in complete actual physical possession over the land in dispute till date.
4. Petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 3367 of 2007 before this Court, which was disposed of on 31.03.2010, with a direction to the petitioners to file a representation before respondent no.2, who shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing. The representation was decided on 05.05.2014 by respondent no.2, who held that the possession of land had already been taken by Tehsildar, Sadar on 31.07.1993 and the land in question is recorded in the name of State Government in revenue records since 21.08.1993, and further on 19.02.2002, the land was transferred to Saharanpur Development Authority. The order of respondent no.2 is under challenge in present petition.
5. Respondent-State filed a counter affidavit stating that the possession of land has been taken on 31.07.1993 and the name of State Government has been recorded in the revenue records. Further, the possession memo has been brought on record as CA-2.
6. During the pendency of above writ petition, an Impleadment Application No.6 of 2019 was filed for impleading Saharanpur Development Authority as one of the respondent. On 22.04.2019, the amendment application was allowed and necessary correction in the array of parties was made. The matter was listed on 15.05.2019, thereafter on 16.05.2019. On 20.05.2019, learned Standing Counsel produced the original records of the case before the Court. This Court after perusal of the records passed following order:-
"Learned Standing Counsel has produced the original record.
We have perused the same.
The possession memo bears only signature of Tehsildar and Lekhpal, Chandrapal Sharma, there is no signatures of the petitioners and witnesses.
It is urged by learned counsel for petitioners that the Tehsildar is not appropriate Authority to take the possession of the land in view of Rules 1983.
Learned Standing Counsel has not disputed the said fact.
Our attention has been drawn to the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate dated
