IMPORTANT POINT
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.

JUDGMENT :

We have heard Sri Amulya Ratan Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners; Ms. Uttara Bahuguna, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel alongwith Sri Piyush Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for State respondents and Sri Abhinava Krishna Srivastava, learned counsel for Kanpur Development Authority.

2. By means of these writ petitions, the petitioners have sought following reliefs :

''(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 13 June, 2018 passed by respondent No. 4 by means of which he has rejected the petitioners' representation regarding Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (since repealed) in respect of the disputed plot.

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities not to interfere with the petitioner's physical possession over plot Nos. 1570, 1514, 1478, 1523, 1543, 1568, 1653, 1579, 1537, 1515, 1529, 1575, 1583, 1655, 1685, 1519, 1377, 1534 and 1587 situated in Naobasta, Kanpur.''

3. It appears from the record that the petitioners' grand father namely Ram Sevak was original tenure holder of Arazi Nos. 1570, 1514, 1478, 1523, 1543, 1568, 1653, 1579, 1537, 1515, 1529, 1575, 1583, 1655, 1685, 1519, 1377, 1534 and 1587, situated at Village Baktauripurva, Naobasta, District Kanpur Nagar. The said land was recorded as agricultural land in revenue record before enforcement of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (in short, Ceiling Act). For declaring the said land of original owner to be surplus, the Collector/Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Kanpur Nagar instituted a case under provisions of Ceiling Act and accordingly, a draft statement under Section 8 (3) of the Ceiling Act was sent to the land holder on 24.11.1980 through registered post but he had not filed any objection within the stipulated period. Finally, the Competent Authority had declared the land owned by the original owner to the extent of 18103.10 square meters to be surplus on 26.2.1981 and the final statement under Section 9 of the Ceiling Act was sent to the original owner through registered post. Thereafter, a notification under Section 10 (1) was issued and the same was also published in the official Gazette. After publication of the notification, no interested person had filed any objection within 15 days and consequently, the notification under Section 10 (3) was issued on 31.3.1984 and the same was also published in the official Gazette. The surplus land was vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances. On 19.6.1985 a notice under Section 10 (5) of the Ceiling Act was issued to the land holder for handing over the possession of the surplus land. Consequently, the State Government has taken possession of the surplus land on 9.10.1986 and the surplus land has been entered in the revenue records in the name of ''Urban Ceiling'' vide order dated 13.3.1987. The property in dispute has been transferred to the Kanpur Development Authority (KDA) on 27.1.1993.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in this backdrop submits that petitioners' grand father was the original owner of the land in dispute. He had two sons namely Jay Narayan and Ram Pal. The petitioners are sons of Ram Pal and they have 1/3rd share each in the disputed plots. While declaring the land as surplus on 26.2.1981 the respondents have wrongly declared the shares of Ram Pal, son of Ram Sevak as surplus under the Ceiling Act, whereas the entire land of the co-sharer Jay Narayan, son of Ram Sevak remains intact. The order dated 26.2.1981 was absolutely illegal as the land in dispute was recorded as agricultural land in the revenue record and hence, the Ceiling Act was not at all applicable in the present case. It is submitted that though there is mandatory provision in Section 11 of the Ceiling Act for paying the compensation, if the land of any original holder is declared as surplus but in the present case, the respondents have decl