BRIJ KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present review petition has been filed by the Moradabad Development Authority, respondent No. 4 in the writ petition seeking the review of the judgment and order dtd. 11/6/2020 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 39872 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the writ petition was allowed and the impugned order dtd. 6/8/2018 was quashed and at the same time, a direction was issued to the respondents to expunge the name of the respondent-State from the revenue records and to restore that of the petitioner who was stated to be the owner of the land in question.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Development Authority submitted that there is error apparent on the face of the record in as much as the Court erred in law to resort to Sec. 10(6) of the Act to prove possession though it is not the case of forceful possession since the possession had already been taken on 13/11/1992. It has been further contended that notice under Sec. 10(5) of the Act was issued on 24/8/1992 which was duly served on the tenure holder and the writ petitioner raised no objection to the said notice under Sec. 10(5) of the Act and on 13/11/1992 peaceful possession of the land was delivered to the State Government and hence, the possession been taken much before the Repeal Act and thus benefit of the Repeal act could not be given to the petitioner. It has been further contended that the District Judge, Moradabad in his report had stated that the land in question is a vacant land and there is no crops standing over it and the vacant land be construed as vacant land as per the provision of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976, however, this Court erred in law in misconstruing and misinterpreting the same and as such, the judgment and order is liable to be reviewed.

(3.) Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.