The court ruled that the State must provide evidence of actual possession for land recorded as surplus; mere vesting does not confer ownership rights post-repeal without taking possession.

JUDGMENT :

Sudhanshu Chauhan, J.

1. Heard Sri Sanjay Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Ravi Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.

2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the father of the petitioners, Sri Lalji was the recorded tenure-holder of certain holdings situated in Village Baraipur, Pargana Shivpur, District Varanasi. A survey of the holdings of Sri Lalji was conducted on 17.08.1977, in pursuance thereto the statement of holdings was submitted by Sri Lalji under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1976”). Subsequently, a notice dated 31.07.1980 was served upon Sri Lalji to which, he submitted a reply dated 26.08.1980. Ultimately, the Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling Varanasi-respondent no.3 vide order dated 10.12.1980 passed in Case No. 792/1105/80-81 ( State vs. Lalji Pandey ) under Section 8(4) of the Act, 1976, declared 14,483.40 square meters of the holdings of Sri Lalji as surplus. Thereafter, a notice under Section 10(5) was issued on 03.03.1987.

3. It is also contended that an intimation under Section 11(8) of the Act, 1976, along with the notice of “Sandeya Dhanrashi” determined under Section 11(7) of the Act, 1976, was issued on 07.07.1987. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the “Sandeya Dhanrashi” was never received either by the original tenure-holder, Sri Lalji or by the petitioners. Sri Lalji had sought time to file objections to the proceedings under Section 11(8) of the Act, 1976 vide applications dated 07.07.1987 and 12.07.1987. Further, nothing much came out of proceeding so initiated under the Act, 1976.

4. It is further argued that after the demise of Sri Lalji, those holdings which had not been transferred to third parties were mutated in the names of the petitioners vide order dated 22.06.2018. The petitioners have filed the Khatauni for Fasli year 1425–1430 in support of their contention.

5. Under the circumstances it is stated that petitioners have filed the present writ petition being aggrieved by the order dated 20.09.2021 passed by the respondent no.3 vide Memo No. 111 dated 20.09.2021, morefully annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, whereby in pursuance to the order passed in Case No. 792/1105/80-81 ( State vs. Lalji Pandey ) land measuring 14483.40 square meters has been recorded in the name of the State of U.P. after deleting the name of the original tenure-holders/petitioners.

6. The respondent nos. 1 to 3 per contra, do not dispute the factual aspects of the subject matter in controversy as far as proceeding under the Act, 1976 are concerned. However, it has been argued that all proceedings, including taking possession of the vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit, were completed prior to the commencement of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the “ Repeal Act, 1999”). It has also been argued that respondent no. 3, vide letter dated 28.