CHANDRMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Shri Raj Karan Yadav, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the Respondents. The pleadings have been exchanged.

(2.) The Petitioner's grand father Shri Nankoo son of Shri Tejai resident of Pure Surdas, Post Jhunsi, Tehsil Phoolpur, District Allahabad filed a return under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (in short the Act). After a survey, a notice under Section 8(3), with a statement prescribed form was issued on 20.3.1982, and was served on him on 05.4.1982. He did not file any objection and thus an order was passed under Section 8(4) on 13.9.1982, declaring 16360.10 square meters in his hands as surplus land.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that notices were never served upon the land holder at any stage from 1976 till date, and thus the whole proceedings are illegal and arbitrary. Though Shri Nankoo had filed a return, an illegal and arbitrary order was passed without hearing him, under Section 8(4) of the Act. Shri Nankoo died more than twenty years' ago leaving behind Shambhu Nath, Lalji, Prabhu as his sons and legal heirs. Shri Shambhu Nath also died leaving behind the Petitioner as his son and legal heir. The Petitioner has an interest in the land declared as surplus. The Respondents have without any notice or information to the Petitioner, took further proceedings for possession. A notice under Section 10(5) was issued on 23.6.1996, but was never served on him.