Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 1746

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Jayant Banerji, JJ.
S.K. Associates – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. And Others – Respondents
WRIT - C No. - 19391 of 2022
Decided On : 25-01-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Rahul Agarwal
For the Respondent: Dharmendra Singh Chauhan

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 taken. The judgment also emphasized the importance of proving possession for the purposes of the Repeal Act, 1999.

Headnote:
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) - Land Dispute - Act 1976, Act 1999 - Section 8, Section 9, Section 10 - The court discussed the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and the subsequent Repeal Act, 1999. It highlighted the importance of proving possession for the purposes of the Repeal Act and emphasized that the repeal of the Act, 1976 would not confer any benefit on the owner of the land if possession has been taken. The court also emphasized that a person seeking the benefit of the Repeal Act should plead and prove that possession was not taken over.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner claimed to be a subsequent purchaser of the surplus declared land under the Act, 1976, by way of a sale deed dated 20.03.2003. The land in question vested in the State, and the petitioner's alleged sale deed was executed after the power of attorney was cancelled. The petitioner had no authority of law to possess the disputed land, and the State had taken physical possession of the land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, as a third-party purchaser, had no locus standi to claim any benefit under the Repeal Act. It also concluded that the alleged transfer of property made in contravention of the statutory mandate was null and void. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner had no locus standi and the petition was also hit by laches.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the petitioner's claim as a subsequent purchaser, the authority of the petitioner to possess the disputed land, and the applicability of the Repeal Act, 1999.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of proving possession for the purposes of the Repeal Act and highlighted that the repeal of the Act, 1976 would not confer any benefit on the owner of the land if possession has been taken. It also stated that the alleged transfer of property made in contravention of the statutory mandate was null and void.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner had no locus standi and the petition was also hit by laches.

JUDGMENT :

Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.

1. Heard Sri Shashinandan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Ashok Mehta, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Dharmendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief:

“(A) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorar quashing the entire quashing the entire proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation), Act drawn against the Tara Chand in Case No.1820/122/82 State of UP. Versus Tara Chand in respect of land of Gata No.825 area 2363.47 sq.m. situated in village Bihar Man Nagla, District Bareilly as having abated in accordance with the provisions of the The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.

(A) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing commanding the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from land of Gata No.825 area 2363.47 sq.m. situated in village Bihar Man Nagla, District Bareilly.

(C) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to correct the revenue records by recording the name of petitioner on land of Gata No.825 area 2363.47 sq.m. situated in village Bihar Man Nagla, District Bareilly.”

3. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that Thakur Das, Tara Chand and Tula Ram were the recorded tenure-holders of certain khasra plots including khasra plot No.825 as per copy of khatauni available in the original record of Ceiling Case No.1339/61/82 produced before the court by the respondents. A notice dated 01.01.1983 under Section 8 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1976’) was issued to the aforesaid Thakur Das, who filed his objection on 02.02.1983 being Case No.1339/61/82 (State vs. Thakur Das). After considering objection an order under Section 8(4) of the Act, 1976 was passed on 27.03.1984 declaring certain land as surplus which included 2363.47 square meters surplus land of khasra plot No.825. Thereafter, a notice under Section 9 of the Act, 1976 was sent to the aforesaid Thakur Das through registered post which was served upon him. Notification under Section 10(1) of the Act, 1976 was issued on 28.08.1985, which was published in the Gazette on 28.02.1986. After publication of the notice under Section 10(1) of the Act, 1976, a notification dated 11.06.1986 under Section 10(3) of the Act, 1976 was sent which was published on 13.09.1986. Notice under Section 10(5) of the Act, 1976 was sent to the recorded tenure-holder on 28.11.1989. According to the respondents, the possession was taken on 16.11.1990. Since none had filed any objection against the possession, therefore, the name of the State Government was recorded in the khataunis over the surplus land free from all encumbrances. On 16.11.1990, the possession was transferred to the respondent No.4, i.e. the Bareilly Development Authority. It is also relevant to mention that on perusal of the original records of Case No.1820/122/82 (State vs. deceased Tara Chand) (Page-16/1), it appears from the noting/ reports dated 25.04.1995 that Thakur Das had also filed some appeal which was pending. However, further particulars of appeal or decision are not available in the records as produced by the State-respondents. This is how there was some link between the ceiling case against the aforesaid Thakur Das and co-tenure holder Tara Chand.

4. That similarly against the co-tenure-holder Tara Chand, a Ceiling Case No.1820/122/82 (State vs. Tara Chand) was registered. A notice under Section 8 of the Act, 1976 was issued to the aforesaid Tara Chand on 06.02.1984, who had not filed his objection and as such an order dated 04.04.1985 under Section 8(4) of the Act, 1976 declaring 6932.23 square meters as surplus land, was passed which included p