Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Anish Kumar Gupta, JJ.
Anees Khan – Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Respondents
Writ - C No. - 33881 of 2022, WRIT - C No. - 36489 of 2014
Decided On : 21-02-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Atul Kumar Singh, Ajay Kumar Singh, Ashish Kumar Singh, Ashok Kumar Singh, Devendra Gupta
For the Respondent: Satyam Singh, P.K.Singh

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 Regulation) Act, 1976, rendering any transfer of property in contravention of the statutory mandate null and void.

Headnote:
Repeal Act - Ceiling Case - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Section 3, Section 8(4), Section 10(3), Section 10(5), Section 10(6) - The judgment discusses the application of the Repeal Act in the context of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. It highlights the importance of proving possession for the purposes of Section 3 of the Repeal Act and emphasizes the statutory bar on transfer created by Section 10(4) of the Act, rendering any transfer of property in contravention of the statutory mandate null and void. The judgment also cites relevant case law to support its findings, including the interpretation of possession and the consequences of dispossession without notice under Section 10(5) of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to abate the entire proceeding of a Ceiling Case and to correct revenue entries. The court found the petition frivolous and concealing material facts, including the pendency of an earlier writ petition by the alleged purchaser of the disputed land. The court dismissed the writ petition with costs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the writ petition to be frivolous and concealing material facts, including the pendency of an earlier writ petition by the alleged purchaser of the disputed land. The court dismissed the writ petition with costs.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the writ petition, the concealment of material facts, and the pendency of an earlier writ petition by the alleged purchaser of the disputed land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of proving possession for the purposes of Section 3 of the Repeal Act and highlighted the statutory bar on transfer created by Section 10(4) of the Act, rendering any transfer of property in contravention of the statutory mandate null and void. The court also cited relevant case law to support its findings, including the interpretation of possession and the consequences of dispossession without notice under Section 10(5) of the Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition with costs and ordered the petitioner to deposit the costs with the High Court Legal Services Committee within one month. The connected writ petition was also dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Writ 'C' No. 33881 of 2022

1. Heard Sri Madhusudan Dixit holding brief of Sri Atul Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel of State-respondents and Sri Jai Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.

2. Learned Standing Counsel has filed today a counter affidavit by means of personal affidavit of the respondent no. 2 dated 19.02.2023, which is taken on record.

3. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for the following relief:

"(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus abate the entire proceeding of Ceiling Case No. 1227 of 1976 State Vs. Nasir Khan in view of the section 3 of the repeal act 1999.

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing to the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner.

(iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to correct the revenue entries so far as Plots no. 897min area 7309.51 Sq. Mt., 718/2 area 665.99 Sq. mt. Village Darakottala Swad, Tehsil & District Saharanpur."

4. On 03.02.2023, this Court passed the following order:-

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Central Government Standing Counsel.

2. Learned Miss Kirti holding brief of Shri Rohan Gupta resp.1counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is the grand-son of one Nasir Khan and is in possession of the land declared surplus land.

3. Perusal of Annexure-1 to the writ petition shows that an order under Section 8(4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1976') in Case No. 1227 of 1976 (State vs. Shri Nasir Khan) was passed by the competent authority under the Act, 1976 declaring 7975.50 sq. mts. of land as surplus.

4. The petitioner claims himself to be the grand-son of the aforesaid Nasir Khan. As per copy of the Aadhar Card filed alongwith the writ petition, his birth year is 1986. Thus,when the proceedings under the Act, 1976 were initiated, the petitioner was not born and even at the time of passing of the order under Section 8(4) of the Act, 1976, he was not more than 6 or 7 years old. He has obtained certified copy of the order under Section 8 (4) of the Act, 1976 on 26.09.2022. The writ petition is totally silent as to when the name of the State was mutated in the revenue records.

5. Since the petitioner has not filed copies of relevant papers, therefore, we direct the respondent nos.2 and 3 to file counter affidavit by means of their personal affidavits, annexing therewith all copies of relevant records including the copy of Khatauni when the name of the State was mutated and copy of the latest Khatauni.

6. Put up as a fresh on 20.02.2023 at 10:00 a.m."

5. On 20.02.2023 this Court passed another order which is reproduced below:

"Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned standing counsel states on instructions that the disputed land was sold by grand father of the petitioner in the year 1991. Neither father of the petitioner nor grand father of the petitioner has agitated at any point of time. The vendees of the aforesaid sale deed filed a Writ -C No.36489 of 2014 challenging the ceiling proceedings, which is pending. Now the petitioner i.e. the grand son of the original tenure holder has filed the present writ petition.

Personal affidavit filed by the respondent no.3 dated 17.02.2023 is taken on record.

When the case is next listed, the name of Sri Jai Bahadur Singh shall be shown in the cause list as counsel for the respondent no.3.

Put up tomorrow as a fresh case alongwith records of Writ -C No.36489 of 2014 at 10:00 A.M."

6. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner states on instructions of the petitioner that the petitioner wants to withdraw this writ petition and, therefore, it may be dismissed as withdrawn.

7. We find that the present writ petition is not only frivolous but also it has been filed concealing material facts of the case including pendency of the