Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SARAL SRIVASTAVA, SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN
Ram Autar – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. Thru. Secr. Ministry of Urban Devp. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard Ms. Pooja Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri Mohan Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Abhinava Krishna Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent Development Authority.
2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings initiated against the petitioners under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and also seeking a direction to restrain the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the land being Gata Nos. 773 and 789 situated in Village Sonakpur, Tehsil and District-Moradabad.
3. Case of the petitioners is that Gokul was the original tenure holder of the land in dispute being part of Gata Nos. 773 and 789 having an area of 7114.40 sq. meters situated in Village Sonakpur, Tehsil and District- Moradabad. Gokul was succeeded by four sons namely, Chhokhelal, Sohan Lal, Dalpat and Ramgopal. The petitioner nos. 1 to 9 are the descendants of sons of late Gokul and the petitioner no. 10 is the son of late Gokul. It is stated that the order under Section 8(4) of the Urban Land (Ce
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.
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 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.
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
