- (1.) WE have heard Shri Pradeep Saxena for the Petitioners. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the State Respondents.
(2.) IT was reported by the office that the counter affidavit is not traceable. Both the parties have supplied copy of the counter affidavit, which was filed by the State. These copies are taken on record and will be substituted in place of the original counter affidavit. The office will continue to trace the counter affidavit and if it is discovered, it may be restored on record. By this writ petition the Petitioners have prayed for directions not to dispossess them from the land in dispute in pursuance to the order dated 5.12.1985 passed by Respondent No. 2 and to direct the Respondents authority to expunge the name of 'Nagar Ceiling Bhumi' from the revenue record and the names of the Petitioners be entered.
(3.) LATE Shri Dodi son of Shri Purnami resident of Village Sanaiya Rani Mewa Kunvar, Pargana, Tehsil and District Bareilly filed a return under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 as Return No. 713/93/81. After survey a draft statement was prepared by the competent authority under Section 8(3) of the Act, proposing 11046.67 square meters to be declared as surplus land. The returnee late Dodi filed objections. After considering his objections the draft statement was modified and that 9163.50 square meters land was declared excess land on 5.12.1985. The notification under Section 10(3) of the Act was issued on 29.7.1993, and published in the official gazette on 11.9.1993 after which the land stood vested in the State of UP. In paragraphs 10 and 11 of the counter affidavit it is stated as follows: 10. That in reply to the contents of paragraph No. 9, (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of the writ petition it is submitted that the Petitioner did not file any appeal or revision against the order dated 05.12.1985 passed under Section 8(4) of the Act under the Principal Act nor made any application to the Government for restoration of the land under the Repeal Act after the Principal Act of 1976 was repealed by vested legislature in State of U.P. 11. That in reply to the contents of paragraph Nos. 10 and 11 of the writ petition it is submitted that the apprehension of the Petitioner that he would be dispossessed, is wholly unfounded inasmuch the State Government, after the repeal of the Principal Act of 1976, cannot take any proceedings now under Section 10(5) or 10(6) of the Act in pursuance of the orders passed under the Principal Act.;