- (1.) By the Court.- Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The relief claimed in this petition is for a mandate to the respondents not to take actual physical possession of the disputed land treating as having been declared surplus and further restrain them from interfering with their possession and for a declaration that proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) viz-a-viz the disputed land stood abated.
(3.) The relevant facts are that upon the promulgation of the Act Amru, the predecessor in interest on the petitioner submitted his return under Section 6(1) and without any notice or opportunity under Section 8(3) thereof an order under Section 8(4) was issued on 2.6.1984 declaring about 1471 square meters land as excess from plot Nos. 156/6 and 156/7. However since the order was not served on the land holder, he executed a registered will dated 10.5.1991 in favour of the petitioner who was his daughter-in-law and subsequently the land holder died on 4.3.1996. After the death of the land holder, the petitioner applied for mutation of her name which was duly entered in the revenue records. However, a notice under Section 10(5) was issued on 26.6.1999 against the deceased land holder calling upon him to surrender the possession of the alleged excess land but the said notice was returned by the process server with the endorsement of his death. Nevertheless, in pursuance of the aforesaid notice the name of the State was mutated in the revenue record and now they are seeking to dispossess the petitioner thus, the present petition with the allegation that the Act was repealed by the Repeal Act of 1999 abating all proceedings under the Act wherein actual physical possession was not taken over.;