Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(All) 353

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.

Delay in asserting rights under land ceiling regulation impacts maintainability of writ petitions; the court dismisses claims due to laches but permits civil recourse.

Headnote:(A) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Repeal Act, 1999 - Writ petitions challenging proceedings regarding surplus land - Petitioners claimed no knowledge of proceedings, unaware of decisions made under the Act - Major delay (32-37 years) in filing petitions impacts maintainability - Court dismisses petitions, but allows petitioners to seek legal recourse in civil court for any claims. (Paras 2, 12, 66)

Table of Content
1. commonality of disputes in ceiling cases. (Para 2)
2. parties' arguments concerning failure to receive notices. (Para 4 , 8)
3. court's observations on procedural matters. (Para 5 , 7)
4. significance of government orders in legal claims. (Para 6 , 12)
5. delay and laches affect legal claim enforcement. (Para 10 , 11)
6. establishment of possession as crucial factor. (Para 14 , 15)
7. final dismissal of writ based on delay. (Para 64 , 66)

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 also been stated that Writ-C No. 33320 of 2015 (Baba Lal Vs. State) was filed by another co-tenure-holder and was allowed on19.12.2017.

(d) The respondents per contra, state that in the proceedings under Act, 1976 Rikhi Ram had filed ceiling return under Section 6(1).Subsequently, notice under Section 8(3) dated 31.03.1985 was issued and the same was served on 14.02.1986. As no objections were filed by the original land-holder, order under Section 8(4) was p