JUDGMENT :

Suneet Kumar, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner claims to be the subsequent purchaser of a portion of the surplus land declared under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for Short “the Act”) from the land holder, vide sale deed dated 25.01.1994.

3. By the instant writ petition, petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from Plot No. 12633 situated in Village Basaratpur Tappa, Qasba, Pargana Haveli, Tehsil Sadar, District Gorakhpur, i.e. the land which came to be declared surplus on 23.09.1978. Further, direction has also been sought to quash the order dated 27.04.2011, passed by the second respondent District Magistrate, Gorakhpur, rejecting the representation of the petitioner.

4. The facts, inter se, the parties are not in dispute that the land holder Khelai, son of, late Ganpat, submitted a return no. 254 under Section 6(1) of the Act, in respect of Plots No. 1263, 1538 and a residential house. The competent authority upon survey prepared a draft statement and the returnee was subjected to notice to file objection under Section 8(3) of the Act. Khelai filed objections on 15.07.1978, the competent authority declared 1475.67 sq. meter land as excess land, vide order dated 23.09.1978, under Section 8(4) of the Act, from the afore-noted plots. No objection was filed against the order, consequently, notification under Section 10(1) of the Act was duly published in the official gazette on 26.12.1978, followed by, notification under Section 10(3) of the Act, duly notified on 29.08.1980. Thereafter, followed by notice under Section 10(5) of the Act on 17.10.1981. Pursuant, thereof, Circle Lekhpal took possession on 14.12.1983. The name of the State came to be recorded in the revenue record in 1399-1404 Fasali, in respect of the excess land, after expunging the name of tenure holder Khelai.

5. In the afore-noted factual backdrop, it is submitted by the petitioner that the original land owner i.e. Khelai vide sale deed dated 25.01.1994, transferred 275 sq. meter of the excess declared land of plot no. 1263, in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the name of the petitioner came to be mutated by the Tehsildar in the revenue record on 15.04.1994 (1401 Fasali). It is submitted that since State had not taken possession, from the erstwhile owner, petitioner is entitled to retain possession in view of Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation (Repeal Act, 1999) (for short “Repeal Act”), which came into force on 18.03.1999.

6. It is submitted that the Repeal Act mandated that all proceedings relating to any order made under the principal Act pending immediately, before the commencement of the Repeal Act, before any Court, Tribunal or Authority shall abate provided that the section shall not apply to such proceedings relatable to the land, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government or by any Authority duly authorized by the State in this behalf.

7. Learned Standing Counsel in rebuttal submits that against the proceedings under the Act, the original land holder did not file any objection or appeal. The proceedings came to be concluded on 19.08.1981, with the surplus land vesting in the State, and thereafter, possession was taken under Section 10(5) of the Act on 14.12.1983, thereafter, the name of the State was duly entered in the revenue record. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner would have no locus being a subsequent purchaser after the notification i.e. land vesting in the State (Section 10(1) / 10(3)), and therefore, it is urged that the transfer is a nullity i.e. void ab-initio.

8. Rival submissions fall for consideration.

9. The question posed before the Division Bench of this Court in Shiv Ram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ-C No. 37964 of 2009 is extracted :

“The issue which has been raised before the Court is whether, as a result of the repeal of the principal Act with effect from 18 March 1999, the petitioner would be