1. Writ petition challenging urban ceiling proceedings on land purchased during pendency — validity of sale deed under Section 10(4) of the Act. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(All) 1419
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SARAL SRIVASTAVA, SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, JJ.
Wood Row School Society - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Up And Others - Respondents
WRIT - C No. - 11397 of 2024
Decided On : 14-09-2026
Important Points
A transfer of excess vacant land executed between the notification under Section 10(1) and the declaration under Section 10(3) of the U.P. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, is null and void and is not revived by the subsequent Repeal Act of 1999.
Subject
Land Law - Urban Land Ceiling
Act Referred
UTTAR PRADESH URBAN LAND CEILING AND REGULATIONS ACT : S.10(1), S.10(3), S.10(4), S.10(5), S.20, S.26, S.28, S.4, S.5, S.5(3), S.8(4)
GENERAL CLAUSES ACT : S.6
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.226
GENERAL CLAUSES ACT : S.6
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.226
Headnote
(A) U.P. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Sections 10(1), 10(3), and 10(4) - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 - General Clauses Act, 1897 - Section 6 - Transfer of excess vacant land - Sale deed executed after notification under Section 10(1) but before declaration under Section 10(3) is deemed null and void under Section 10(4) - Repeal of the parent Act does not revive a transfer that was void ab initio by operation of law - Section 6 of General Clauses Act provides that repeal shall not revive anything not in force or existing at the time of repeal. (Paras 20-24)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Delay and Laches - Petitioner approaching court after 37 years from the date of sale deed, despite knowledge of proceedings, is not entitled to extraordinary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Paras 31-34)
Facts of the case:
A society purchased land via a registered sale deed in 1987. A portion of the land had been declared vacant surplus in 1982. The sale deed was executed after the publication of the notification under Section 10(1) but before the notification under Section 10(3) of the 1976 Act. The petitioner sought to quash the ceiling proceedings and prevent dispossession, arguing that the Repeal Act of 1999 abated the proceedings as they remained in possession.
Findings of Court:
The sale deed in respect of the surplus land is null and void under Section 10(4) of the 1976 Act. The Repeal Act 1999 does not validate a transfer that was void by operation of law at the time of execution. The petitioner has no right, title, or interest over the surplus land and thus no locus standi to challenge the proceedings.
Issues: Whether a sale deed executed during the prohibited period under Section 10(4) of the 1976 Act is valid, and whether the Repeal Act 1999 revives such a void transfer.
Ratio Decidendi: Any transfer of excess vacant land made in contravention of Section 10(4) of the 1976 Act is null and void. Pursuant to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the repeal of an Act does not revive a deed that was non-est or void at the time the repeal took effect.
Result: Writ petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed.
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Delay and Laches - Petitioner approaching court after 37 years from the date of sale deed, despite knowledge of proceedings, is not entitled to extraordinary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Paras 31-34)
Facts of the case:
A society purchased land via a registered sale deed in 1987. A portion of the land had been declared vacant surplus in 1982. The sale deed was executed after the publication of the notification under Section 10(1) but before the notification under Section 10(3) of the 1976 Act. The petitioner sought to quash the ceiling proceedings and prevent dispossession, arguing that the Repeal Act of 1999 abated the proceedings as they remained in possession.
Findings of Court:
The sale deed in respect of the surplus land is null and void under Section 10(4) of the 1976 Act. The Repeal Act 1999 does not validate a transfer that was void by operation of law at the time of execution. The petitioner has no right, title, or interest over the surplus land and thus no locus standi to challenge the proceedings.
Issues: Whether a sale deed executed during the prohibited period under Section 10(4) of the 1976 Act is valid, and whether the Repeal Act 1999 revives such a void transfer.
Ratio Decidendi: Any transfer of excess vacant land made in contravention of Section 10(4) of the 1976 Act is null and void. Pursuant to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the repeal of an Act does not revive a deed that was non-est or void at the time the repeal took effect.
Result: Writ petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- property law
- practice and procedure
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Pavan Kishore, Rahul Agarwal
For the Respondent: C.S.C.
For the Petitioner: Pavan Kishore, Rahul Agarwal
For the Respondent: C.S.C.
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner claimed valid sale after Section 26 notice and abatement under Repeal Act; State contended sale void under Section 10(4). (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
3. Sale of surplus land after Section 10(1) notification is void under Section 10(4); Repeal Act does not revive void transfers. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 )
4. Transfer of excess vacant land after Section 10(1) notification is null and void under Section 10(4); Repeal Act does not revive it. (Para 22 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 )
5. Writ petition dismissed; petitioner has no title or locus to challenge proceedings or seek possession of surplus land. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 )
6. What is the effect of a transfer of surplus vacant land made after a notification under Section 10(1) of the U.P. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976?
Such a transfer is deemed null and void by operation of Section 10(4) of the Act, irrespective of any notice under Section 26. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 24 )
7. Does the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 revive a sale deed that was declared void under the 1976 Act?
No. The Repeal Act does not revive void transfers; Section 6 of the General Clauses Act preserves the previous operation of the repealed enactment. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 )
8. Can a person who purchases surplus land under a void sale deed challenge the proceedings or possession action under the ceiling law?
No. Such a purchaser has no locus standi to challenge the proceedings or the manner of taking possession because the transfer itself is void ab initio. (Para 27 , 30 , 36 )
9. What is the effect of delay and laches in filing a writ petition challenging urban ceiling proceedings?
A writ petition filed after 37 years, when the petitioner knew of the proceedings, is liable to be dismissed on grounds of delay and laches. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 )
JUDGMENT :
Sudhanshu Chauhan, J.)
1. Heard Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Pavan Kishore Advocate for petitioners and Sri Mohan Srivastava for respondents.
2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking for the following reliefs :-
(A) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the entire proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation), Act drawn against the Mohd. Kamar in Case No. 213/100/82 State of U.P. Versus Mohd. Kamar in respect of land of Gata No.367 situated in village Jagatpur Lala Begum, District Bareilly as having abated in accordance with the provisions of the The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.
(B) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from land Gata No.367 situated in village Jagatpur Lala Begum, District Bareilly.
(C) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to correct the revenue records by recording the name of petitioner on land of Gata No.367 situated in village Jagatpur Lala Begum, District Bareilly.
3. The present controversy arises out of proceedings under the U.P. Urban Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1976") and the land in dispute measures 4021.26 sq m, comprised in Gata No. 367, situated in Village Jagatpur Lala Begam, District Bareilly.
4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that Woodrow School Society -petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The petitioner society is running a school by the name Woodrow Senior Secondary School, affiliated to Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) since the year 1991, the school has about 3,000 students. The petitioner society, through Km Pushpa Vani, Principal, Prem Vani, President, and Gul Vani, Vice President, vide registered sale deed dated 10.11.1987, had purchased the share of Mohd Kamar in land bearing Gata No. 367, total area measuring 4 bighas 13 biswa and 13 biswansis, and land comprising Gata No. 344, total area measuring 1 bigha 9 biswa and 10 biswansis, situated in Village Jagatpur Lala Begum, Bareilly. The said sale deed was registered in the office of Sub- Registrar, Bareilly, on 20.08.1988. It is also submitted that the sale deed dated 10.11.1987 was executed after giving notices under Section 26 of the U.P. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act 1976"), dated 26.8.1987 and 31.08.1987 respectively. Further, at the time of the execution of the sale deed, the land so purchased was recorded in the name of the seller - Mohd Kamar - in the revenue records, the petitioner, in support thereof, has relied upon the Khatauni of Fasli year 1393-1398.
5. It is further submitted that proceedings under the Act, 1976, were initiated against the original landholder, Mohd. Kamar, and registered as case number 213/100/82. Subsequently, vide an ex-parte order dated 12.07.1982, passed under Section 8(4) of the Act,1976, 4,021.26 sq. m. of land comprised in Gata No. 367 was declared vacant surplus. However, further proceedings in the case were stayed till the final decision of the State on the application filed by the original landholder under Section 20 of the Act, 1976. Thereafter, a notice under Section 9 was issued, followed by a notification under Section 10(1) of the Act, 1976, dated 15.12.1982. Subsequently, a notification under Section 10(3) was issued on 28.12.1989. On 22.4.1993, the Lekhpal concerned had submitted a report that the application under Section 20 had been rejected by the State Government vide order dated 01.09.1983 and in pursuance thereto, a notice under Section 10(5) was issued on 22.4.1993, which was not served on the original land holder. Therefore, another notice under Section 10 (5) of the Act,1976 dated 16.6.1993 was issued to the legal heirs of Mohd. Kamar, which was also
