Back
MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, PRASHANT KUMAR
Hakim Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
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 hol
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....
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.
Delay in asserting rights under land ceiling regulation impacts maintainability of writ petitions; the court dismisses claims due to laches but permits civil recourse.
Timely objection is essential in ceiling proceedings; long delay in seeking judicial intervention leads to barring of relief due to laches, irrespective of alleged possession.
Failure to issue mandatory notices under the Urban Land Act invalidates state claims of land possession, allowing petitioners to retain ownership rights based on ongoing lawful occupancy.
Section 24(2) of Act of 2013 does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of....
Land Acquisition – Possession not taken - Lapse of proceedings – stale and dead claims cannot be permitted to be canvassed on the pretext of enactment of Section 24
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
