RADHEYSHYAM AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that the land in dispute was declared surplus in the hands of their father Hooblal, who was recorded tenure holder but actual physical possession was never taken before enforcement of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (in short the 'Repeal Act, 1999') on 18.03.1999, as such, the entire proceedings stand abated and they would be entitled to the benefit of the Repeal Act, 1999.

(3.) Specific case of the petitioners is that actual physical possession was never taken. From te pleadings, it appears that Hooblal was recorded tenure holder and by means of an ex-parte order passed under Section 8(4) of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (in short the 'Act, 1976') an area 4375.12 sq. meter land was declared surplus in his hands. It is further pleaded that thereafter no proceedings under Section 9 or 10 were ever taken, hence, after enforcement of the Repeal Act, 1999, the ceiling proceedings stand abated and the State authorities have no authority or jurisdiction to interfere in the possession of the petitioners as all the proceedings stand abated under the Repeal Act, 1999.