LALJI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and learned Standing Counsel. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided. By this writ petition, the petitioners has prayed for mandamus commanding the respondents to abate the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and not to mutate the name of State.

(2.) PETITIONERS ' case in the writ petition is that the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 were initiated against the tenure holder Jagbeer. The tenure holder filed his return and final order under section 8(4) of the Act was passed declaring 11430.08 square meter land as surplus ceiling land. Petitioners' case is that the consolidation proceedings intervened, it has been further stated that petitioners being successor of late Jagbeer are in possession of the land and the physical possession of land was never taken by the State and no proceedings under section 10(6) of the Act were undertaken. It has been submitted that in view of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, the petitioners are entitled to be continued with the possession of the land. It has been further submitted that petitioners' name are still continuing in revenue records.

(3.) IN the present case, there is no material to prove that the actual physical possession was taken by the State in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act, the petitioner is clearly entitled for the relief prayed in the writ petition. We further direct respondent no.1 to correct the revenue record, accordingly." The present case is fully covered by the aforesaid judgement of the Division Bench; There is no material to prove that actual physical possession was taken of the surplus land, petitioners are entitled for the relief in the writ petition. The writ petition is allowed.