JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By the instant writ petition, petitioners and the subsequent purchasers seek direction to the State-respondent not to dispossess the petitioners from the land declared surplus in proceedings under the U.P. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'Act').

3. The land in dispute being Plot No. 397, admeasuring 1.370 hectares, situated in Asadpur Kayam, Tehsil Koil, Aligarh. As per the pleadings set up by the petitioners, the predecessor in interest of the petitioners, namely, Chunni Lal, filed statement under Section 6 of the Act. Under Section 8(4), the order came to be passed on 18 March 1985, against Chunni Lal, by the competent authority. No objections was filed by the land owner. The final statement, thereafter, was issued under Section 9 on 4 October 1985. Thereafter, notification under Section 10(1) with regard to the acquisition of land in excess of ceiling limit was issued, followed by publication of notification under Section 10(3) declaring the land to have vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances. The notification under Section 10(1) was issued on 27 February 1988, followed by declaration under Section 10(3) of 20 September 1988. Thereafter, pursuant to notice under Section 10(5) of the Act, issued on 31 May 1993, the possession of the land was taken by the competent authority not faced with any objections.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no notice came to be issued under Section 10(6) for taking possession forcefully from the petitioners, further, it is alleged that pursuant to notice under Section 10(5), the land in excess was not surrendered. It is alleged that possession of the land was never delivered by predecessor in interest, i.e., Chunni Lal.

5. It appears, thereafter, the petitioners herein, subsequently, sold and consequently transferred the excess land in favour of the proposed petitioners who have sought impleadment.

6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, a categorical stand has been taken that no objection against the notice under Section 10(5) of the Act was filed by the land owner, consequently, there was no occasion for proceeding under Section 10(6).

7. Further, it is being stated that the land in question has since been transferred to Aligarh Development Authority on 24 February 2001, and development work over the said land has been undertaken.

8. On specific query, the learned counsel for the petitioners has not disclosed as to when the land after notification under Section 10(1)/10(3) was transferred by way of registered sale-deed.

9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record.

10. It is not in dispute that the notice under Section 10(5) was issued on 31 May 1993, which was not objected to by the land owner, therefore, the occasion of issuing notice under Section 10(6) to the land owner did not arise. The petitioners herein waited for long and for the first time approached this court in 2006, by filing writ petition being Writ Petition No. 49369 of 2006, which came to be disposed of by order dated 7 September 2009, directing the Collector to decide the representation. It appears that the representation was not decided, hence, the present writ petition came to be filed in 2009.

11. In this backdrop, it is evident that the petitioners have raised the issue of possession and notice under Section 10(6) the Act after a lapse of 13 years and there is no explanation for the delay.

12. In the case of State of Assam vs. Bhaskar Jyoti Sharma and others, (2015) 5 SCC 321 (Paras-16, 17 and 19), Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

“16. The issue can be viewed from another angle also. Assuming that a person in possession could make a grievance, no matter without much gain in the ultimate analysis, the question is whether such grievance could be made long after the alleged violation of Section 10(5). If actual physical possession was tak