BASMATTI Vs. STATE OF U P AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application, petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 26.3.2007 whereby the representation of the petitioner filed before the District Magistrate, Varanasi has been rejected. Petitioner further prayed for quashing of the entire proceedings of Case No.666/2577/81-82, initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1976') by declaring that the said proceeding had abated under Section 4 of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Repeal Act'). The petitioner also prayed that a writ of mandamus may be issued restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute.

(2.) Sans unnecessary details, the facts of the case is that the petitioner being the owner of the land, pertaining to plot nos. 281, 251 and 8 situated in village Karaundi and Susuwahi respectively of the District Varanasi, had given details of the land under Section 6 (1) of the Act of 1976 as demanded by the respondents. It appears that the respondent-authority initiated a proceeding under the provisions of the Act of 1976 vide Case No.666/2577/81-82 against the petitioner and issued notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why the land in question be not declared surplus. It appears that the respondent-authority passed order on 10.6.1981 declaring 1575.22 sq. meter of land of plot no.281, 159.27 sq. meter of land of plot no.251 of village Karaundi and 25 decimal land of plot no.8 of village Susuwahi of the District Varanasi as surplus land. It then appears that by an order passed under Section 10 (3) of the Act of 1976, the aforesaid surplus land declared to have vested in the State of U.P. with effect from 31.1.1998. Thereafter a notice, under Section 10 (5) of the Act of 1976 issued on 21.3.1998 and the petitioner was directed to handover the possession of above surplus land within 30 days from the date of notice, otherwise a proceeding under Section 10 (6) of the Act of 1976 will be initiated against the petitioner for taking forceful possession.

(3.) It is stated by the petitioner that in compliance of notice issued under Section 10 (5) of the Act of 1976, she had not surrendered and/or delivered possession of the land to the respondents. It is further stated that the respondents had not taken forceful possession of the land in question under Section 10 (6) of the Act of 1976.