Hon'ble Mrs. Jayashree Tiwari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This petition is directed against an order dated 17.11.1992 passed by the District Judge under Section 33 of the U.P. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) remanding the matter to the Competent Authority for decision afresh.
It is pleaded that upon the enforcement of the Act as the contesting respondent possessed excess vacant land he filed a statement before the Competent Authority and after a survey a draft statement under Section 8(1) of the Act was prepared and whereafter 14,661.16 sq. mtr. was declared excess vacant land. Notice under Section 9 was sent through registered post but no objections were filed and as such the notification under Section 10(1) was published on 16.10.1985. However, when notification under Section 10 (3) of the Act was issued and served on the land holder on 14.2.1992, he preferred his objections before the Competent Authority on 25.2.1992 which was rejected vide order dated 10.4.1992 against which the land holder preferred an appeal which has been allowed by the impugned order remanding the case to the Competent Authority for decision afresh.
During the pendency of this petition, the Ceiling Act was repealed vide the Repealing Act of 1999 which was enforced in the State of U.P. w.e.f. 18.3.1999 and since there was no averment available on record as to whether the possession of the excess vacant land was ever taken, this Court passed the following order on 16.11.2009:
"In this writ petition, the State of U.P. through Competent Authority, Urban Ceiling, District Bareilly has challenged the order of the District Judge, Bareilly dated 17.11.1992, allowing the appeal filed by Shri Kesher Singh. After setting aside the order dated 10.4.1992 passed by the Competent Authority under Section 10 (5) of the Act declaring surplus land in the hands of the petitioner, the application filed by the appellant for restoration before the competent authority was allowed and the competent authority was directed to give opportunity to the appellant to file objections under Section 8 of the Act to be disposed of under Section 8 (4) of the Act in accordance with the law. The parties were directed to appear before the competent authority for further orders.
The order of the District Judge was stayed by this Court on 19.7.1993, and the writ petition is pending since then. It is stated by learned standing counsel that the competent authority has referred to the notice sent to the respondent by registered post on 23.6.1983. No further notice was required to be sent.
The District Judge has observed that there is no finding with regard to sufficiency of the service of notice recorded by the competent authority.
There are no averments in the writ petition or in the rejoinder affidavit to the effect that the possession was taken after the draft statement was finalised.
The Urban Ceiling Act has been repealed in the year 1999. The Repealing Act was adopted by the State of U.P. Since the proceedings under the Ceiling Act could not be finalised, and there is no averment with regard to the taking over of the possession of the surplus land; the proceedings ought to have been abated.
Let the Standing Counsel find out whether the possession of the excess land was taken by the State Government, after the ceiling proceedings were finalised by the order of the Prescribed Authority. The Standing Counsel is allowed two week's time to seek instructions.
List on 8.12.2009."
However, despite the said order nothing has been brought on record to show that actual possession of the excess vacant land has been taken even till date. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Hari Ram and others [2005 (60) A.L.R. 535] has already held that where actual possession of vacant land has not been taken, in view of the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, the land would revert to the land holder.
We find no reasons to differ with the view taken in the case of Hari Ram and therefore, all proceedings under the Ceiling Act stands abated and consequently the land stands restored to the land holder.
Subject to the aforesaid observation, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.
Order Date :- 6.1.2010 AK