The State must prove actual physical possession of surplus land to assert rights under the Urban Land Ceiling Act; failure to do so results in the abatement of proceedings under the Repeal Act.

JUDGMENT :

SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.

1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioners have prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from dispossessing or interfering with the peaceful possession of petitioners from their surplus declared land in question, situated in village Lawayan, Pargana Arail, Tehsil Karchhana, District Allahabad and in furtherance directing the respondents not to make any interference in the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the land/plots on area 67138.12 square meter situated at aforementioned place.

FACTS

2. Factual matrix giving rise to the instant writ petition is delineated below:

a) In the present lis, one Bholanath (father of petitioner no.1 to 4, father-in-law of petitioner no. 5 and 6, and grandfather of petitioner no. 7 to 11) was the owner in possession of various agricultural lands situated in village Lawayan Kala, Pargana Arail, Tehsil Karchhana, District Allahabad. His name was also recorded in Khasra of 1422 Fasli year (corresponding to the year 2012). He had been cultivating the land since then.

b) The State initiated ceiling proceedings against Bholanath in Case No. K-3770/1976 (State v. Bholanath) under Section 6 (1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ceiling Act’) based on his statement regarding vacant land.

c) Thereafter, the Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent no.3’) passed an ex-parte order dated May 24, 1983 under Section 8 (4) of the Ceiling Act, declaring 67,138.12 square meter of land as surplus.

d) On July 24, 1993, a notification under Section 10 (1) of the Ceiling Act was published, followed by a declaration under Section 10 (3) of the Ceiling Act, in the official gazette.

e) Subsequently, respondent no.3 issued notice dated May 27, 1996 under Section 10 (5) of the Ceiling Act directing Bholanath to voluntarily handover/surrender the possession of surplus land to the Collector/District Magistrate, Allahabad within 30 days of receipt of the notice.

f) However, Bholanath neither voluntarily surrendered the possession of the land before the authority, nor did the District Magistrate/Collector, Allahabad or any other authority take forceful possession of the same under Section 10 (6) of the Ceiling Act. The ceiling proceedings only reached upto the stage of Section 10 (5) of the Ceiling Act.

g) Bholanath continued in the actual physical possession of land until his death in May, 2005. After his demise, his legal heirs inherited the property, including the surplus land, and have remained in actual physical possession since then.

h) Since neither actual physical possession of the land was taken by the State Government nor any compensation was awarded to them for the surplus declared land, all the proceedings under the Act, stood abated after enforcement of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Repeal Act’).

i) In December 2015, respondent authorities visited the land and threatened the petitioners to vacate the surplus land within 30 days. They warned of forced dispo