- (1.) BY this petition, Petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 12/7/2010, passed by the District Judge, Bareilly in Urban Ceiling Appeal No. 07 of 2008, Baboo Khan and Ors. v. State of U.P. through Collector District Bareilly. Mandamus has also been prayed commanding the Respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession and use of the Petitioners over the Plot Nos. 257 and 338 measuring total area of 1464.33 Sq metres situate in Village Rahpura Choudhary and Mahlau District Bareilly declared surplus by the Respondent No. 3. It has further been prayed that mandamus be issued commanding the Respondents to delete the name of State Government from the revenue record and substitute the name of the Petitioners in respect of land in question.
(2.) BRIEF facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are: The Petitioners claim that Plot Nos. 257 and 338 were recorded in the name of Petitioners and their ancestors. In proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Statement was filed by Chotey Khan, father of Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3. Proposal for declaring 1464.63 sq metres as surplus was sent, to which no objections were filed. The Prescribed Authority vide its order dated 22/8/1983 declared an area of 1364.33 square metres as surplus in plot Nos. 257 and 338. In accordance with Section 10(5) and 10(6) of the The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter called the "Act 1976") the possession was claimed to be taken by the State of the surplus land on 14/3/1989. The Petitioners moved an application on 22/8/2003 praying for setting aside the order dated 22/8/1983. Another application was made on 10/9/2003 and 16/11/2003 stating that they are still in possession of the land in dispute. The Prescribed Authority/Additional District Magistrate (City) passed an order on 23/2/2008, rejecting the applications/representations of the Petitioners holding that after proceedings under Section 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act, 1976 the possession was taken on 14/3/1989 by the State Government and the name of the State Government has been recorded in the revenue records. The Petitioners filed appeal under the Urban Ceiling Appeal No. 07 of 2008 against the order dated 23/2/2008 of the Prescribed Authority. The said appeal has been dismissed by the learned District Judge vide order dated 12/7/2010. This writ petition has been filed challenging the said order. The appellate authority by the impugned order has held that actual and physical possession having been taken by the State Government, the competent authority had no jurisdiction to decide the application dated 23/8/2007. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents contended that in the present case the applications which were filed by the Petitioners before the Prescribed Authority were not maintainable. He submits that the Act, 1976 was rescinded by the Urban Ceiling and Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter called the Repeal Act, 1999) and at the time of repeal no proceedings being pending, there was no occasion for entertaining any application by the prescribed authority or entertaining an appeal by the appellate authority. Reliance has been placed by the learned Standing Counsel on the judgments of the Apex Court in Munshi Lal v. District Judge Aligarh : (2008) 3 SCC 301; Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ritesh Tiwari and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2009 (2) ADJ 97; D. Ramkrishna Reddy and Ors. v. A.R.D. Officers and Ors., (2007) 7 SCC 12 and Sita Ram Bhandar Society v. Lt. Governor Govt. of NCT and Ors. : (2009) 10 SCC 501.
(3.) WE have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.;