Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(All) 352

2026 AHC 62343
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SARAL SRIVASTAVA, SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, JJ.
Kumbha Karan – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others – Respondents
WRIT C. No. 19612 of 2018 Along with Writ C. No. 8237 of 2017, Writ C. No. 8238 of 2017, Writ C..No. 8242 of 2017, Writ C. No. 26381 of 2017, Writ C. No. 6765 of 2018, Writ C. No. 6926 of 2016, Writ C. No. 6679 of 2018, Writ C. No. 6701 of 2018, Writ C. No. 11225 of 2018, Writ C. No. 11226 of 2018, Writ C. No. 19678 of 2018, Writ C. No. 19694 of 2018, Writ C. No. 19800 of 2018, Writ C. No. 29963 of 2018, Writ C. No. 34357 of 2018, Writ C. No. 36216 of 2019, Writ C .No. 36927 of 2019, Writ C. No. 13925 of 2021
Decided On : 25-03-2026
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner : Dhiraj Srivastava, Raj Karan Yadav, Yadvendra Kumar Yadav
For the Respondents : C.S.C., Raj Mohan Upadhyay, Ram Raj Singh.

Advocates:
Petitioner: Dhiraj Srivastava , Raj Karan Yadav and Yadvendra Kumar Yadav
Respondent: C.S.C. , Raj Mohan Upadhyay and Ram Raj Singh

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.

Headnote:(A) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Sections 8 and 10 - Repeal Act, 1999 - Petitioners challenged validity of ceiling proceedings claiming non-service of notice; court found that all heirs were aware of the proceedings and did not object within the stipulated time - 32-37 years lapsed before approaching court highlights delay and laches, barring relief - Petitioner failed to demonstrate possession or establish rights, as revenue records favor State. (Paras 5-66)

(B) Delay and Laches - Legal principle established; delay in filing petitions for over 30 years w.r.t. proceedings under the Act, 1976 bars the case - Laches deemed waiver of right to contest validity of proceedings. (Paras 60-64)

(C) Possession and Rights - Mere reliance on photographs and electricity bills insufficient to contest the claim of State’s possession as per revenue records. (Paras 23, 66)

Result: Writ petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. these petitions arise out of proceedings under the urban land (ceiling and regulation) act. (Para 1 , 2)
2. the petitioner seeks reliefs against various proceedings under the act. (Para 4)
3. the relief sought includes direction for taking necessary action under new government orders. (Para 5 , 6)
4. the respondents contend that the land has vested with the state following due process. (Para 7 , 8)
5. timeliness of filing petitions and claims of possession are critically examined. (Para 9 , 10)
6. long delays in filing claims have affected the ability to contest the legality of possession. (Para 11 , 12)
7. possession should be proven through adequate documentation and evidence. (Para 13 , 14)
8. statutory procedures followed for taking possession were found valid despite non-compliance. (Para 15 , 16)
9. equity and justice concepts considered in light of perceived procedural error. (Para 17)

JUDGMENT :

(Sudhanshu Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Raj Karan Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Abhinav Krishan Srivastava, learned counsel for the Prayagraj Development Authority and Sri Rajeshwar Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel II for State.

2. The bunch of present writ petitions arise out of proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the “the Act, 1976”). The Act, 1976 was repealed by Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the “the Repeal Act, 1999”) and the Repeal Act, 1999 came into force in the State of Uttar Pradesh on 18.03.1999. All the writ petitions pertain to erstwhile District-Allahabad, now Prayagraj. In view of the similitude of controversy involved and commonality of dispute, these writ petitions are being decided by this common judgment and order. Amongst this bunch of writ petitions, Writ-C No. 19612 of 2018 (Kumbha Karan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) is the leading case but the relevant factual aspects of all the writ petitions are being narrated briefly along with the facts of the leading case as contained hereunder ;

(3.1) Writ-C No. 19612 of 2018 (Kumbha Karan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.)

(a) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(i) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent to take necessary action and proceed as well as decide the case in pursuance of new Government order dated 29.9.2015.

(ii) issue a writ order or direction in the the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to abate the proceeding of case No.P-805/1976 (State Vs. Rishi Ram)village Katka District Allahabad under Repeal Act 1999.

(iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondents correct the revenue records in name of petitioner.”

(b) It is stated that the father of the petitioner, Rikhi Ram had filed ceiling return under Section 6(1) registered as Ceiling Case No. P- 805/1976. Thereafter without service of notice under Section 8(3), an order under Section 8 (4) was passed on 25.02.1986. A notice under Section 10(5) was issued on 02.08.1996. It has further been claimed that respondents had not taken any steps to take the possession of the land in dispute under Section 10(6) and the petitioner is in actual possession over the land in dispute. Rikhi Ram passed away leaving behind Kumbh Karan-petitioner, Jiya Lal, Kanhaiya Lal and Dharmraj, his sons and legal heirs. It is also claimed that the writ petition was being filed against the inaction of the respondents in not abiding with the directions contained in government orders moreso, government order dated29.09.2015.

(c) It has been further claimed that one, Munnu son of Ram Khelawan, who was one of the co-tenure-holders, had filed Writ-C No. 30361 of 2010 against his land being declared surplus under the Act, 1976 and the aforesaid writ petition was allowed vide judgment and order dated 04.07.2013. It has