MOHAMMADUNISHA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner contends that by virtue of The Urban Land ( Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Repeal Act), the proceedings under taken in Case No. 4546 of 1976 State Vs. Mohammad Shareef, pertaining to village Jahangirabad, declaring 15273.89 Sq. Mtrs. land has abated and consequentially petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 20.11.2008, passed by the District Magistrate, Allahabad rejecting his aforesaid contention and has also sought that the revenue records be corrected in light of the above.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)Act, 1976 ( hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act), an order dated 11.1.1982 was passed under Section 8(4) of the Principal Act, declaring 15273.89 Sq. Mtrs. land as surplus. The Collector, in his order under challenge, has recorded that after complying with the requirement of Section 10 (1) and 10 (3) of the Principal Act, a notice under Section 10 (5) was issued to the tenure holder on 24.2.1996. Notices under Section 11(8) of the Act was also stated to have been served on 26.3.1998. The Collector has held that after the land vested in the State by operation of law, the name of the State over the land has also been mutated. The order further records on the strength of a physical verification report that the land in question forming parts of Araji No. 269 (Part) , 279,339 and 344 of village Jahangirabad and plot Nos. 103/1, 110,102/1,102/2,17/1,10/1,11/1 and 36 of village Madhopurhave been illegally encroached upon by raising constructions after the introduction of the Principal Act. The Collector, in view of aforesaid proceeded to reject the representation of the petitioner vide order dated 20.11.2008. The order dated 20.11.2008 itself was passed, in purported compliance of the directions issued by this Court dated 24.2.2005 in Writ Petition No. 10302 of 2005.

(3.) Petitioner while challenging the aforesaid order and seeking relief of the Repeal Act, has contended that no notice of Section 10(5) of the Act was ever served upon the tenure holder nor the actual physical possession was delivered to the State by the tenure holder, pursuant to the alleged notice under Section 10(5) nor forcible possession under Section 10(6) of Act was taken, either, and therefore, by virtue of the provisions of the Repeal Act, the proceedings under the Principal Act, stood abated and the contrary view taken by the authorities are illegal. Petitioner has also relied upon recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Hari Ram, 2013 4 JT 275and subsequent reiteration of it in Gajanan Kamlya Patil Vs. Additional Collector and Competent Authority and others, 2014 3 JT 211. Reliance has also been placed upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 39530 of 2010 dated 7.4.2014.