Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SARAL SRIVASTAVA, SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN
Sanjay Kumar Pandey – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. – Respondent
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
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.
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.
The vesting of land under a specific provision does not confer actual possession to the State unless it is proven that physical possession was taken or voluntarily surrendered.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proving possession for the purposes of the Repeal Act and the statutory bar on transfer created by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Re....
Possession of land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act must be established lawfully; mere vesting does not equate to possession, especially post-repeal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the possession of the land, as per the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and the Repeal Act, 1999, had been lega....
Land declared surplus under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act vests in the State, rendering any subsequent transfers void, and the principle of 'fraud vitiates all' applies to claims made a....
Delay in asserting rights under land ceiling regulation impacts maintainability of writ petitions; the court dismisses claims due to laches but permits civil recourse.
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
