ISRAR HASAN KHAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-State.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that though the land of the petitioner was declared as surplus under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (in short hereinafter referred to as 'Act') but actual physical possession has not been taken and thus he would be entitled to the benefit of sub-section (3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (in short hereinafter referred to as 'Repeal Act').

(3.) Specific case of the petitioner is that actual physical possession had not been taken and mere symbolic possession would not be sufficient as the petitioner continues in possession of the plot in question.