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 statement came to be served upon the land owner under Section 8(3), along with notice dated 04 August 1979.

Petitioner did not respond to the notice by filing objection, consequently, order under Section 8(4) came to be passed on 26 March 1983, declaring 5758.81 square meter of land in excess of the ceiling limit under the Act. On completion of proceedings under Sections 9 and 10(1) of the Act, on receiving no objection from the land owner or any other interested person under Section 10(2) of the Act, a notification under Section 10(3) of the Act was issued on 31 October 1985, duly published in the Official Gazette on 15 January 1986, vesting the surplus vacant land in the State. Thereafter, a notice under Section 10(5) of the Act was issued on 16 December 1986, pursuant, thereof, the authorized person of the competent authority had taken possession of the surplus land on 12 November 1991.

5. It appears that later on, one Ashok Kumar Kushwaha, son of Shri Babu, filed a representation on 1 April 2006, requesting that Plot No. 1192, declared surplus was not owned by the petitioner. It appears that the representation was accepted by the competent authority vide order dated 13 July 2006, consequently, the Plot No. 1192, was released in favour of Ashok Kumar Kushwaha and his name was duly mutated in the revenue record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in possession of the plots even after repeal of the principal Act, w.e.f. 18 March 1999. It is urged that at this stage, petitioner cannot be dispossessed from the land declared surplus. Reliance has been placed on the decisions rendered by Supreme Court in State of U.P. Vs. Hari Ram, 2013 (120) RD 241, as well as, decisions rendered by this Court in Ram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2020 (147) RD 1 , Ikrar & Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2020 (2) AWC 1288 and State of U.P. Vs. Jagdish Chandra, 2014 (1) AWC 864.

7. It is not the case of the petitioner that the land owner at any stage had protested with the declaration of surplus land or had objected before the authorities with regard to dispossession not being in accordance with the law.

8. It appears that an appeal being appeal no. 20/70 of 1999, came to be filed by the petitioner before the District Judge on 18 February 1999. The cause of action set up in the appeal is that on 30 December 1998, the Kanpur Development Authority was demarcating the land. Thereafter, petitioner approached the Lekhpal on 4 January 1999, and on perusal of the revenue record, it transpired that the name of the Kanpur Development Authority was mutated in the revenue record. Thereafter, petitioner contacted his lawyer and got inspected the file pertaining to urban ceiling and obtained copy of the order dated 6 March 1982, on 12 February 1999,