LAL JI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Shri S.V. Goswami learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner's father late Shri Bhabhuti was issued a notice under Section 8(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The father of the petitioner submitted a reply to the notice. On 21.1.1984, the prescribed authority passed an order declaring some land of the petitioner's father as surplus. It is , urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the possession of the land was not taken by the respondents and the entire proceedings under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 abated in view of Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. In paragraph 10 of the writ petition it has been specifically stated by the petitioner that the possession has not been taken by the respondents of the land in dispute. Nor any final decision has been taken, as provided by Section 9 of the Act. In the counter-affidavit in paragraph 2 it has been stated by the respondents that the possession of surplus land has been taken over by the State prior to encroachment of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 and the land is recorded in the revenue records in the name of respondents. But neither any revenue record nor any possession memo has been filed alongwith the counter-affidavit nor any record has been filed to demonstrate that any notice under Section 10(5) of the Act was issued to the petitioner or was served on the petitioner and was acted upon or the proceedings under Section 10(6) were taken and possession memo was prepared alongwith entries in U.L.C. Form Nos. III, IV and V; whereby actual physical possession was taken as held by Division Bench of this Court in State of U.P. v. Hari Ram,2005 60 ALR 535 , that mere vesting of 'land declared surplus' under the Act without resuming 'de facto possession' is of no consequence and the land holder shall be entitled to the benefit of Repeal Act.

(3.) In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Since the petitioner's land is in his possession, he shall not be dispossessed from the land in dispute and all the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 shall abate against the petitioner or his father late Shri Bhabhuti.