Court No. - 29
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41294 of 2019 Petitioner :- Chiranji Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 20 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prem Sagar Verma,Madan Mohan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
The submission of Sri Madan Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner is that after the land was declared to be surplus under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and on issuance of notice under Section 10 (5) of the Act, the actual possession of the land was never taken and the representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the District Magistrate by only stating that since notice under Section 10 (5) of the Act was issued and the name of the petitioner has been recorded in the revenue records, it means that the possession has been taken over but without any finding that actual possession was taken under Section 10 (6) of the Act.
Learned Standing counsel may file counter affidavit within six weeks. Two weeks thereafter are allowed to the petitioner for filing rejoinder affidavit.
Since respondents no. 5 to 21 are proforma respondents and no relief has been claimed against them, service of notice upon them for time being is dispensed with.
List for admission/final disposal on the expiry of the above period.
Until further orders of this Court, parties are directed to maintain status quo with regard to possession and nature of the land in dispute.
Order Date :- 18.12.2019 SKS