S. K. ASSOCIATES Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Shashinandan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Ashok Mehta, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Dharmendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief:

(3.) Briefly stated facts of the present case are that Thakur Das, Tara Chand and Tula Ram were the recorded tenure-holders of certain khasra plots including khasra plot No.825 as per copy of khatauni available in the original record of Ceiling Case No.1339/61/82 produced before the court by the respondents. A notice dtd. 1/1/1983 under Sec. 8 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1976') was issued to the aforesaid Thakur Das, who filed his objection on 2/2/1983 being Case No.1339/61/82 (State vs. Thakur Das). After considering objection an order under Sec. 8(4) of the Act, 1976 was passed on 27/3/1984 declaring certain land as surplus which included 2363.47 square meters surplus land of khasra plot No.825. Thereafter, a notice under Sec. 9 of the Act, 1976 was sent to the aforesaid Thakur Das through registered post which was served upon him. Notification under Sec. 10(1) of the Act, 1976 was issued on 28/8/1985, which was published in the Gazette on 28/2/1986. After publication of the notice under Sec. 10(1) of the Act, 1976, a notification dtd. 11/6/1986 under Sec. 10(3) of the Act, 1976 was sent which was published on 13/9/1986. Notice under Sec. 10(5) of the Act, 1976 was sent to the recorded tenure-holder on 28/11/1989. According to the respondents, the possession was taken on 16/11/1990. Since none had filed any objection against the possession, therefore, the name of the State Government was recorded in the khataunis over the surplus land free from all encumbrances. On 16/11/1990, the possession was transferred to the respondent No.4, i.e. the Bareilly Development Authority. It is also relevant to mention that on perusal of the original records of Case No.1820/122/82 (State vs. deceased Tara Chand) (Page-16/1), it appears from the noting/ reports dtd. 25/4/1995 that Thakur Das had also filed some appeal which was pending. However, further particulars of appeal or decision are not available in the records as produced by the State-respondents. This is how there was some link between the ceiling case against the aforesaid Thakur Das and co-tenure- holder Tara Chand.