Back
SUNEET KUMAR, RAJENDRA KUMAR IV
Kailash Prasad Tewari – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. Thru Secy. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Suneet Kumar, J.
1. Heard Shri P.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Manisha Chaturvedi holding brief of Ms. Chandra Kala Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Shri Abhinav Krishna Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the Development Authority.
2. Petitioner by the instant writ petition, inter alia, seeks direction to the State-respondent not to interfere in the peaceful possession of Plot Nos. 1356, 1723, 1112, 1104 and 1163, situated in Village-Bara Sirohi, Tehsil and District-Kanpur Nagar. Petitioner has also sought quashing of the order dated 27 July 2011, passed by District Judge/Appellate Authority, Kanpur Nagar, in Misc. Appeal No. 20/70 of 1999 (Kailash Prasad Vs. Competent Authority).
3. The facts of the instant case, briefly stated, is that the predecessor in interest of the petitioner filed statement/return under Section 6(1) of U.P. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 (for short 'Act'), giving details of his land/property being case No. 8683. Upon survey, the land/property, admeasuring 5758.81 square meter, was found in excess of the ceiling limit in possession of the petitioner.
4. Consequently, a draft st
The court established that proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act abate if possession is not taken before the Repeal Act, but claims can be dismissed on grounds of delay.
Delay in asserting rights under land ceiling regulation impacts maintainability of writ petitions; the court dismisses claims due to laches but permits civil recourse.
Timely objection is essential in ceiling proceedings; long delay in seeking judicial intervention leads to barring of relief due to laches, irrespective of alleged possession.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proving possession for the purposes of the Repeal Act and the statutory bar on transfer created by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Re....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the repeal of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 would not confer any benefit on the owner of the land if possession has been t....
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
