SUGREEV Vs. STATE OF U.P.AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-and the learned Standing Counsel for the State. By virtue of present writ petition the petitioner contended that father of the petitioner was bhumidhar of plot No. 126 situated in Village Mirak pur Uparhar, Plot Nos. 157 and 44 situated in Village Maheva Patti Paschim and Plot Nos. 92/4, 102/14 situated in Village Mirakpur Cachar, Pargana Arail, Tehsil Karchhana, District Allahabad.

(2.) It is further contended that the aforesaid land of the petitioner was declared surplus by the competent authority Urban Land Ceiling, Allahabad behind the back of the petitioner's father. The petitioner contends that up till now the aforesaid land is in actual physical possession of the petitioner arid mustard crop is standing over the land in dispute and none of the competent authority or any person duly authorised by him ever taken possession of the land and as such land never vested in the State Government. The petitioner moved a representation in the matter but no heed was paid to his representation dated 21.7.2008 which is Annexure 3 to the writ petition. The petitioner prays 'that the order dated 30.10.1984 which is Annexure 1 to the writ petition be quashed.'

(3.) Learned Standing Counsel for the State by filing counter-affidavit has rebutted the contentions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition. In the counter-affidavit filed by Devendra Singh, Assistant Engineer, Urban Land Ceiling, Allahabad it has been stated while denying the contention of the petitioner that excess land proposed to be declared surplus under section 8(3) of the Act and notice for hearing was issued which was served on petitioner Sugreev on 19.10.1984. Despite service of notice the petitioner did not appear before the Court on the fixed date nor filed any objection. Consequently, ex parte order was passed under section 8(4) declaring 6636-31 sq. meter of land as surplus. It is further contended that name of State Government was mutated and proceedings under section 10(3) by publication dated 14th September, 1991 were made and further proceedings for possession of the land under section 10(5) were initiated on 31.3.1993 and it is further contended that the petitioner illegally encroached the said land and doing agricultural work. No document in support of the contention that service of notice under section 8(3) was affected on the petitioner has been filed nor any document under which m pursuance of the notice under section 10(5) possession was taken by the Government with the consent of the land holder has been filed in support of the contention raised in the counter-affidavit. The counter-affidavit is totally silent as to whether any memorandum or possession was prepared on the spot or further any proceedings under section 10(6) were taken and possession was taken by way of using necessary coercive measures.