ASHARPHI DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN both the aforesaid writ petitions following prayers are made:-

(2.) IT was contested by the parties, specially the State and a private respondent i. e. Little Flower School. According to the respondents-State, when the land was vested with them under The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)Act, 1976, they took the possession of the land and on the basis of its decision at district level as per the policy of the State, the same was handed over to the little Flower School. Therefore, the actual physical possession is with the school. Hence, even after coming into force of repealing Act i. e. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, the petitioners cannot get back the land in question. The Writ Court has a limited role to play in this respect i. e. to see who is in actual physical possession to comply with the provision of repealing Act. To avoid the peculiar circumstances and to expedite the process, this Court on numerous occasions passed orders appointing the Special Officers to visit the premises in presence of the parties and file reports under sealed cover before the Court to come to a definite conclusion with regard to actual physical possession. As a result whereof we have appointed Sri Yashwant varma, learned Advocate of the High Court as Special Officer, to visit the locate and submit report, who has submitted accordingly. Relevant part of the report is as follows:-

(3.) WE have concised the cases in similar manner on numerous occasions and the contesting parties have accepted such view and various matters are disposed of in such manner. See Kailash and another v. State of U. P. and others1, civil. Misc. Writ Petition No. 36805 of 2003, Smt. Champa Devi v. State of u. P. and others, decided on 23. 9. 2005, Civil. Misc. Writ Petition No. 36803 of 2003, Smt. Shakuntala Devi v. State of U. P. and others, decided on 23. 9. 2005 ). This is one of such similarly circumstanced matters. The only difference is that in those cases actual physical possession was not with the State but here it is with the State through its authorised person.