RAJU Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Atul Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri B. K. Ojha, learned counsel appearing for Allahabad Development Authority.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the averments made in the writ petition and the supplementary affidavit contends that thereafter no proceedings were undertaken and after enforcement of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (herein after referred to as Repeal Act, 1999), entire proceedings stood abated by operation of law and thus, the respondents cannot interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute. It is further submitted that once the order declaring the land as surplus was set aside, it was incumbent upon the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings and unless the competent authority determined the surplus area and notification was issued under Section 10 (3) of the Act 1976, vesting the surplus land in State and actual physical possession was taken over by the State by issuing notice under Section 10 (5) or forceful possession under section 10 (6) of the Act 1976 and before the aforesaid proceedings could be undertaken the Repeal Act 1999 was enforced and thus, there is no surplus land over which the State can have any claim.

(3.) Facts in this regard are mentioned in the writ petition and supplementary affidavit that no further