RANNO DEVI Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Smt. Ranno Devi w/o Shri Surendra Prasad r/o village Hasanpur, pargana Dehat Amanat, tehsil and district Varanasi, seeking relief in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order of Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Varanasi dated 12.8.1981 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) and also for quashing the ex-parte appellate order of Appellate Authority (District Judge). (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) and also for issuing a mandamus directing that the petitioner's possession over her agricultural land measuring 7660-97 sq. metres may not be disturbed, as the Ceiling Act stands repealed by virtue of the Repealing Act No. 15 of 1999.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner is the bhumidhar (Sankramaniya) of the said land in the village Hasanpur, pargana Dehat, district Varanasi. Petitioner also has his residential house in Hasanpur, pargana Dehat Amanat, tehsil district Varanasi with appurtenant land area 264.95 acre and total owned by the petitioner is 7670-97 sq. metres. Petitioner filed a return No. 4936 under Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 for the total area of 7660-97 sq. metres. The respondent Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Varanasi allowed deducting the permitted area of 1,500 sq. metres, the proposed excess vacant land as 6170-97 sq. metres and issued a draft statement under Section 8(3) of the Ceiling Act. Against which petitioner filed objection to the point that the notice under Section 8 is contrary to legal provisions and no valid master plan has been sanctioned under the U.P. Urban Planning Act, 1973 nor any master plan has been enforced. The alleged master plan is illegal and has no proof of enforcement as the plot number and the area are incorrect. The disputed land was agricultural land prior to passing of Ceiling Act, 1976 and was being utilized as agricultural land and it was never used for non-agricultural purposes, hence the Ceiling Act does not apply. The land revenue is being realized by the State, since last 50 years, the land is a sole source of livelihood of the petitioner from the time of his ancestors and belongs to Hindu United Family. The proper hearing on the objections under Section 8 was required by the competent authority who brushed aside the objections by giving inadequate findings and reasons at the stage of Section 8 of the Act. The illegality committed by the competent authority were pointed out by the petitioner in an appeal filed under Section 33 of the Ceiling Act before the appellate authority, copy of the order of competent authority is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The khatauni for the years 1398 to 1403 fasli. village Hasanpur pargana Dehat is filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition and the Nakal Joth Chakbandi Akar Patra 23 is filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. An appeal was filed before the District Judge, Varanasi under Section 33 of the Ceiling Act, copy of the same is annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Copy of the Ch. Form 45 and new Gata No. 154Ka is annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The Joth Chakbandi Akar Patra 11 is annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The death certificate of Shri Raghu is annexed as Annexure-7. The final statement under Section 9 of the Act, was never served upon the petitioner. It is also alleged that the compliance of the important provisions contained under Sections 10(1), 10(3) and 10(5) was not done and the petitioner is in actual physical possession over the land. The provisions contained under Sections 10(3) and 10(5) of the Ceiling Act are most essential ingredients and non-compliance of those provisions has rendered the ceiling determination a nullity. The petitioner's land was basically a agricultural land within the meaning of definition included under Section 2 of the Ceiling Act, the petitioner was not under any legal duty to file return under Section 6 of the Act. Yet the authorities made such out of proportion propaganda and due to apprehension petitioner filed a return hoping that just decision will be taken and that there will be no ceiling to his land as the same was agricultural land but filing of the return under Section 6 has forced him to come into the litigation. The Ceiling Act has been repealed by the Repeal Act No. 15 of 1999. The notification under Section 10(1) of the Ceiling Act was not published in the manner provided under the law, i.e., Rule 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules, 1976. The copies of the notification were not affixed at conspicuous places in the office of the Collector, Tehsildar and Municipal Committee and no such endorsement has been found. The competent authority never called upon the petitioner to surrender or to deliver possession of 6170.97 sq. metres of alleged excess land. Besides, there is no paper on record which may indicate that actual physical possession was ever taken. On the other side, the land has been in continuous possession of the petitioner. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 came into force in the State of U.P. w.e.f. 18.3.1999, Section 3 of the Repealing Act only saves those vesting in which possession has been taken. In the petitioner's case, no possession has been taken and no amount of compensation has been paid, since the possession has not been taken, the title reverts to the petitioner. The learned appellate authority District Judge simply dismissed the appeal in default and the aforesaid important provisions contained under Section 3 of the Repealing Act of 1999 were never applied. The master plan came into force after the appointed day of 17.2.1976, when the Ceiling Act came in force. The petitioner was left with no alternate and efficacious remedy except to approach the Hon'ble Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India. The family is dependent on the agricultural income. The land illegally came under the Ceiling Act in 1976 and the land is existing at 12 Kms. outside of city and the petitioner belongs to Harijan and Scheduled Caste and no compensation has been received by the petitioner. The land in question is a rural land and therefore the entire proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is vitiated and bad in the eyes of law, hence the order passed by the learned District Judge, Varanasi in appeal is arbitrary and illegal. No notice under Section 9 of the Act was given to petitioner and without service of notice under Sections 9 and 8(2) of the Act, the entire proceeding are vitiated. The proceedings were initiated in arbitrary manner and possession of the petitioner is still there, with petitioner Smt. Ranno Devi is the only legal heir of Sri Raghu and no information under Section 8(4) was given to petitioner by the competent authority.

(3.) Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, Assistant Engineer. Urban Ceiling, Varanasi has filed counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, in his counter-affidavit, he has denied the contentions of the petitioner and has stated that the contentions of the petitioner is that he has 7670.97 sq. metres land is admitted and need no reply. It is further stated that on the objections filed by the petitioner, the petitioner failed to produce any evidence and on this ground his objection overruled by the competent authority under Section 8(4) by the order dated 8.12.1981, the order dated 8.12.1981 states that petitioner was heard on the objections. It is further contended that under Section 9 the legal formalities were completed on 1.9.1982. It is further submitted that the proceeding under Sections 10(1) and 10(3) were published in the Government Gazette on 9.5.1986 and the proceeding for mutation have been done and the adequate compensation has been fixed by the competent authority on 21.9.1996, information of which was given to deceased Raghu and Sri Nakhdu s/o deceased Raghu. It is further submitted that the order prepared under Section 10(5) is annexed at page 5/1 to 5/3 of the file but it does not bear the signature of the competent authority.