Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45903 of 2015 Petitioner :- Ram Kailash & Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikash Chandra Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ram Raj Singh
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Singh holding brief of Sri Vikas Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi assisted by Sri Bansh Narain Pathak, learned Standing Counsel for State respondents.
2. Pursuant to order dated 13.11.2017, respondents-2 and 3 are present. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents- 2, 3 and 4 which has been sworn by Sri Sushil Kumar Yadav, Tehsildar, Tehsil-Karchhana, District Allahabad. Only question raised in this petition is that land i.e. 4266.69 Sq. Meters of plot no. 50A was declared surplus under provisions of U.P. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1976") but possession thereof was not taken by respondents at any point of time and, therefore, with enactment of U.P. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1999") entire ceiling proceedings have abated and now respondents cannot interfere with possession of petitioner.
3. In Para 11 of counter affidavit it is stated that a notice under Section 10(5) was issued to land owner on 17.09.1992 which was served on 29.10.1992 and, since land vested in State, possession of land was given to Allahabad Development Authority. In the entire affidavit it is not disclosed that possession of land in question was taken by respondent at any point of time or that possession was handed over voluntarily by land owner after a notice under Section 10(5) or that possession was taken forcibly under Section 10(6) of the Act, 1976. On being questioned, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Standing Counsel admitted that except evidence as stated in counter affidavit, there is no material available on record to show how possession of land was taken by competent authority under Section 10(6) of Act, 1976.
4. Moreover, there is neither any averment nor any material to show that actual physical possession of disputed land was transferred to Allahabad Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "ADA") on the date of enforcement of Act, 1999 or present de facto possession over land is that of ADA.
5. Therefore, there being no specific averment made in counter affidavit we have no option but to hold that respondents had failed to show that possession of land in dispute was taken before enactment of Act, 1999.
6. In view of above ceiling proceedings stood abated under the Act, 1999 in respect of surplus land in question.
7. The writ petition is allowed. Respondent shall not interfere with possession of petitioner over land in dispute. Petitioner is also entitled cost which we quantify as Rs.10,000/-.
Order Date :- 27.11.2017 S. Thakur