JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer that the surplus land comprised in Gata No. 61 areas 204.8 square meter, Gata No. 219 areas 8106.10 square meters, Gata No. 220 areas 1638.80 square meters, Gata No.62 areas 1229.10 square meters, Gata No. 63 areas 4199.10 square meters, Gata No. 64 areas 13127.37 square meters and Gata No. 61 areas 1024.25 square meters of village Teeklapura, Majra Bingawan, Pargana and Tehsil and District - Kanpur Nagar may be entered in the Khataunis in the name of the petitioner. A further prayer has been made that the possession of the total area of 30512.63 sq. meter contained in Gata No. 61 areas 204.8 square meter, Gata No. 219 areas 8106.10 square meters, Gata No. 220 areas 1638.80 square meters, Gata No.62 areas 1229.10 square meters, Gata No. 63 areas 4199.10 square meters, Gata No. 64 areas 13127.37 square meters and Gata No. 61 areas 1024.25 square meters of village Teeklapura, Majra Bingawan, Pargana and Tehsil and District - Kanpur Nagar (herein after referred to as ''the land in question) may not be taken away from the petitioner.

2. The petitioner's case is that when the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest, and thereafter the petitioner, had remained in possession over the land in question which was earlier declared surplus and which was never taken away from the petitioner, then the Ceiling Authorities were wrongly treating the land as that of the State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the Khasras of the year 1398F to 1401F(annexure 3 to the writ petition) and thereafter the khasras of the year 1420F(Annexure SA-3 to the supplementary affidavit filed on 7.2.2017) would go to indicate that the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest and thereafter the petitioner had continued to be in possession over the land in question.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act of 1976'), the land in question was declared surplus under Section 8(4) of the Act of 1976, and the possession of the land had not been taken over on or before the commencement of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act of 1999'), the petitioner shall not be dispossessed in pursuance of any orders whatsoever of the Ceiling Authorities. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner has read out Section 3 of the Act of 1999, the same is being reproduced here as under:-

"3. Saving. - (1) The repeal of the principal Act shall not affect -

(a) the vesting of any vacant land under sub-section (3) of Section 10, possession of which has been taken over the State Government or any person duly authorized by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority;

(b) the validity of any order granting exemption under sub-section (1) of Section 20 or any action taken thereunder, notwithstanding any judgement of any court to the contrary;

(c) any payment made to the State Government as a condition for granting exemption under sub-section (1) of Section 20.

(2) Where -

(a) any land is deemed to have vested in the State Government under sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the principal Act but possession of which has not been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorized by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority; and

(b) any amount has been paid by the State Government with respect to such land

then, such land shall not be restored unless the amount paid, if any, has been refunded to the State Government.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, has submitted that since the petitioner had continued to be in physical possession of the aforesaid khatas, which were earlier declared surplus under the Act of 1976, because of the coming of the Act of 1999, the petitioner shall continue to be the owner of the land in question and the petitioner shall continue to be in possession.

6. In the instant