Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, Pankaj Bhatia, JJ.
Ram Singh and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors. – Respondents
Writ-C No. 9071 of 2010
Decided On : 20-08-2019
Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 252 (1), 252(2) – Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act No. 36 of 1976 – Section 8(3), 10 – Repealing Act, 1999 –Section 2 – Notice was served upon petitioners and father of petitioners have filed objections against notice, however, by means of ex-parte order land of petitioners were declared surplus by competent authority – It is claimed that no further steps were taken in pursuance to order and petitioners continued to be in actual physical possession of property in question –Petitioners claimed that petitioners are still in possession over said land till date and physical possession of land had not been taken by respondents till date and up till now petitioners are cultivating land as same is agricultural land – It is stated that Uttar Pradesh Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 enacted by Parliament in exercise of its legislative power under Article 252 (1) of the Constitution of India and came into force in U.P. by adopting aforesaid act under Article 252(2) of Constitution of India – Thereafter Parliament passed Repeal Act No. 15 of 1999 and same is adopted by state of U.P. by Repeal Act no. 15 of 1999 which came into force in Uttar Pradesh by Repeal Act no. 15 of 1999 which came into force in Uttar Pradesh –No compensation was aver paid or accepted by petitioners under Ceiling Act – It is also stated that name of petitioners' father was entered in revenue record against Gata Nos. 165, 533, 561 & 196 and after death of father of petitioners, names of petitioners were duly recorded vide order – It is also brought on record that petitioners continued to be in physical possession of property in question and that petitioners had deposited Tube well charges regarding land in question for cultivation for the years 2008 and 2009. In view of the factual averments made as well as relying upon judgment of Supreme Court in case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Hari Ram (2013) 4 Supreme Court Cases 280, petitioners claim that they are entitled to reliefs claimed in the writ petition – Held, Relying upon judgment in case of Mohammad Suaif and another Vs. State of U.P and judgment in case of Nanku Lal Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others and considering facts of case – Writ Petition Allowed (Paras 23 )
Facts of The Case:
Notice was served upon petitioners and father of petitioners have filed objections against notice, however, by means of ex-parte order land of petitioners were declared surplus by competent authority – It is claimed that no further steps were taken in pursuance to order and petitioners continued to be in actual physical possession of property in question –Petitioners claimed that petitioners are still in possession over said land till date and physical possession of land had not been taken by respondents till date and up till now petitioners are cultivating land as same is agricultural land – It is stated that Uttar Pradesh Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 enacted by Parliament in exercise of its legislative power under Article 252 (1) of the Constitution of India and came into force in U.P. by adopting aforesaid act under Article 252(2) of Constitution of India – Thereafter Parliament passed Repeal Act No. 15 of 1999 and same is adopted by state of U.P. by Repeal Act no. 15 of 1999 which came into force in Uttar Pradesh by Repeal Act no. 15 of 1999 which came into force in Uttar Pradesh –No compensation was aver paid or accepted by petitioners under Ceiling Act – It is also stated that name of petitioners' father was entered in revenue record against Gata Nos. 165, 533, 561 & 196 and after death of father of petitioners, names of petitioners were duly recorded vide order – It is also brought on record that petitioners continued to be in physical possession of property in question and that petitioners had deposited Tube well charges regarding land in question for cultivation for the years 2008 and 2009. In view of the factual averments made as well as relying upon judgment of Supreme Court in case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Hari Ram (2013) 4 Supreme Court Cases 280, petitioners claim that they are entitled to reliefs claimed in the writ petition.
Finding of The Court:
Relying upon judgment in case of Mohammad Suaif and another Vs. State of U.P and judgment in case of Nanku Lal Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others and considering facts of case.
Result: Appeal Allowed.
ORDER :
Pankaj Bhatia, J.
1. Heard Shri R.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. The petitioners in the present petition claim to be the owners of Bhumidhari land situate at village Chaka Tehsil Karchhana District Allahabad and claim to be in possession of the property in question since for the last about 65 years.
3. The present petition seeks a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings initiated against the petitioners under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act No. 36 of 1976 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') as abated in view of the Repealing Act of 1999.
4. It is alleged that a notice under Section 8 (3) of the Act was served upon the petitioners and the father of the petitioners have filed objections against the said notice on 18.9.1979, however, by means of an ex-parte order the land of the petitioners were declared as surplus by the competent authority on 30.11.1979 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). It is claimed that no further steps were taken in pursuance to the order dated 30.11.1979 and the petitioners continued to be in actual physical possession of the property in question.
5. The petitioners claimed that the petitioners are still in possession over the said land till date and the physical possession of the said land had not been taken by the respondents till date and up till now the petitioners are cultivating the aforesaid land as the same is an agricultural land.
6. It is stated that the Uttar Pradesh Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 enacted by the Parliament in exercise of its legislative power under Article 252 (1) of the Constitution of India and came into force in U.P. by adopting aforesaid act under Article 252(2) of the Constitution of India on 17.6.1976. Thereafter Parliament passed a Repeal Act No. 15 of 1999 on 22.3.1999 and same is adopted by the state of U.P. by Repeal Act no. 15 of 1999 which came into force in Uttar Pradesh by Repeal Act no. 15 of 1999 which came into force in Uttar Pradesh on 31.3.1999.
7. It is also alleged in the writ petition that no compensation was aver paid or accepted by the petitioners under the Ceiling Act. It is also stated that the name of the petitioners' father was entered in the revenue record against Gata Nos. 165, 533, 561 & 196 and after the death of the father of the petitioners, the names of the petitioners were duly recorded vide order dated 14.6.2002. It is also brought on record that the petitioners continued to be in physical possession of the property in question and that the petitioners had deposited the Tube well charges regarding the land in question for cultivation for the years 2008 and 2009. In view of the factual averments made as well as relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Hari Ram (2013) 4 Supreme Court Cases 280, the petitioners claim that they are entitled to reliefs claimed in the writ petition.
8. In the counter affidavit filed by the State Government, no documents have been annexed to demonstrate as to how the possession was taken, the only defence taken is that the name of the State Government has been mutated in the revenue records and that the writ petition filed after several years, is liable to be dismissed.
9. On 13.3.2019, this Court had passed the following order:-
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
