- (1.) HEARD Sri Mansoor Ahmad learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.K. Chaubey learned Standing Counsel appearing for all the respondents.
(2.) CHABI Nath son of Sraju Prasad has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere with their physical possession over plots No. 68 and 68 (part) situate in village Mawaiya Tahsil Karchhana district Allahabad measuring 7184.77 sq. meters declared surplus under order dated January 27, 1981 passed by the then Competent authority under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 “called the Act”: filed as Annexure “2” to the petition, as also a writ of mandamus commanding respondent No. 3/Competent Authority under the Act to delete the name of State Government from the revenue records and substitute the name of the petitioner in respect of the land in question which was declared surplus. The case of the Petitioner is that his land was declared surplus by the Competent Authority under the Act. The petitioner claims that he is Bhumidhar of the agricultural land in question and is using it for agricultural purposes for more than 35 years. According to him, certain trees also stand on the said plot. It is admitted that some action was taken under Section 8(3) of the Act by issuing notice but petitioner has submitted its reply dated 16 -10 -1980 (Annexure 1 to the petition). In the said reply the petitioner has again reiterated the above facts including the fact that he is carrying on agricultural activities on the said land.
(3.) PETITIONER has categorically stated in paras 5 and 6 of the petition that no show cause notice was served upon him to hand over physical possession by the Collector and physical possession of the land so declared surplus has never been taken by the Competent Authority or the Collector Allahabad. He reiterates that while proceedings were initiated under Section 10 (1), 10(3) and 10(5) of the Act, no notice was served upon the petitioner and he continued in defacto physical possession of the land in question. The petitioner goes on stating that the petitioner was and is always in actual possession over the land and using it for agricultural purposes till today and over part of the aforesaid plot 22 trees of Mango and Mahuwa are still existing.;