Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SARAL SRIVASTAVA, SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN
Kumbha Karan – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
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 The Act, 1976 was repealed by Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the “the Repeal Act, 1999”) and the Repeal Act, 1999 came into force in the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 conta
Delay in asserting rights under land ceiling regulation impacts maintainability of writ petitions; the court dismisses claims due to laches but permits civil recourse.
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.
The court established that proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act abate if possession is not taken before the Repeal Act, but claims can be dismissed on grounds of delay.
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....
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.
(1) Existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar on exercise of writ jurisdiction.(2) Factum of possession is essentially a question of fact – Although there is no hard and fast rule tha....
A writ petition challenging dispossession under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act was dismissed due to the petitioner's failure to raise timely claims and the lifting of compensation, which....
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
