STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. AMIN UDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Madhusudan Dikshit for the respondent nos. 1 to 5.

(2.) The State has filed this writ petition assailing the order passed by the Collector Saharanpur dtd. 29/10/2010 primarily on two grounds, namely, that the Collector had no jurisdiction in the matter to pass any such order relating to the declaration of possession or otherwise, which could have been done only by the competent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The other submission raised by the learned Standing counsel is that the possession of the disputed land from the tenure holder had been taken as per the provisions of Sec. 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, and consequently, once the possession had been taken over, the finding of the Collector that actual physical possession remained with the respondents is of no consequence keeping in view the various pronouncements of this Court as well as the Apex Court. The learned Standing Counsel therefore submits that once the possession had been taken over and it had been handed over to the Saharanpur Development Authority, there was no occasion for the Collector to have commented upon the nature of the proceedings.

(3.) Sri Madhusudan Dikshit on the other hand for the respondents submits that the Collector has done nothing but simply on the administrative side complied with the directions of the High Court dtd. 9/4/2009 on making an enquiry with regard to the status of actual physical possession of the respondents and nothing beyond that. He submits that the order of the Collector was not an adjudication of any of the rights of the parties in terms of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and was a compliance order in view of the direction of the High Court dtd. 9/4/2009 in Writ Petition No. 50818 of 2000.