A writ petition challenging dispossession under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act was dismissed due to the petitioner's failure to raise timely claims and the lifting of compensation, which barred relief.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Shri M.A. Haseen, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Sharad Chandra Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel for State respondents and Shri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (in short ''the Parishad'').

2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for a direction to respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question at Khasra No. 863, 864, 897, 903, 904 situated at Village Kakaraitha, Tehsil Sadar, District Agra, declared surplus vide order dated 18.5.1977 passed under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976 and record the name of the petitioner after expunging the name of State Government.

3. It transpires from the record that ceiling proceedings were initiated under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (in short ''the Act, 1976'') against the petitioner-Hakim Singh and his brother Mavasia, both sons of Beneram, who were recorded tenure holders of Plot Nos. 863, 864, 897, 903, 904 (total area 8 Beegha 4 Biswa) (in short ''the disputed land''), Village Kakaraitha, Tehsil Sadar, District Agra. The petitioner was recorded tenure holder with bhumidhari rights and was in possession over his holding (half share of the disputed land). A notice under Section 8 (3) of the Act, 1976 was issued to the petitioner by the Prescribed Authority in the year 1977 and the same was also objected. The said objection was rejected by the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 18.5.1977 declaring certain land as surplus. It is claimed that the petitioner had no knowledge of the order dated 18.5.1977 and had never received any notice under Section 9 of the Act, 1976. Therefore, he could not file any appeal against the order dated 18.5.1977. It is also claimed that in the ceiling proceeding 1500 sq. mtr. land was left in favour of the petitioner as per Section 4 (9) of the Act, 1976, upon which the respondents had no right and title and as such the entire impugned action of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal. Though the land in question was declared surplus but no actual and physical possession was taken from the petitioner and the petitioner remained and still in actual and physical possession over the disputed land. It is also claimed that no compensation under Section 11 of the Act, 1976 was given to the petitioner. Although the notification under Section 10 (3) of the Act, 1976 was issued on 27.12.1982 and under Section 10 (5) was issued on 18.9.1986 but as both the notifications were not served upon the petitioner, therefore, actual possession was neither been delivered by the petitioner nor taken by the State Government. No proceeding for taking possession under Section 10 (6) of the Act, 1976 or any other provisions had even been invoked against the disputed land. After the Repeal Act, 1999 no proceeding under Section 10 (6) can be initiated and the State Government cannot dispossess the petitioner after the Repeal Act. Mere publication of notification under Section 10 (3) and 10 (5) of the Act, 1976 is not sufficient, if the actual physical possession has not been taken by the prescribed Authority.

4. It is contended that neither the actual physical possession has been taken by the authorities nor the petitioner has handed over the possession to the State but surprisingly in the month of April, 2017 the officials of the respondent No. 5-Parishad came on the spot and threatened the petitioner for dispossession. When the petitioner enquired about the same, they orally informed that the entire land including the land in dispute (8 Beegha 4 Biswa) was acquired for housing purposes. It is claimed that neither the petitioner had received any notice or information of the acquisition by respondent No. 5-Parishad nor he received any compensation. As such it is submitted that this Court may come for rescue and reprieve of the petitioner.

5. On the matter being taken up on 11.12.2023, the Court has proceeded to pass the following order :

''1. Sri S.C. Upadhy