- (1.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought to challenge the order dated 23.04.2001 passed by the District Judge, Saharanpur dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners under section 33 of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1976') as well as order dated 17.02.1987 passed by the Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Saharanpur declaring an area 10685.66 sq. meter as surplus land. The petitioners have also claimed benefit of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Repeal Act') on the ground that since the actual physical possession of the land declared surplus was not taken by the State prior to enforcement of Repeal Act with effect from 18.03.1999, ceiling proceedings have lapsed.
(2.) Brief facts of the case giving rise to the writ petition are that Kashmiri Lal, who was recorded tenure holder, filed a return under the Act, 1976 claiming inter-alia that he had no surplus vacant land. The return filed by the tenure holder was not accepted and the competent authority prepared a draft statement dated 30.08.1978 under Section 8(3) of the Act, 1976 proposing to declare an 9468.95 sq. meter as surplus land, against which the recorded tenure holder Kashmiri Lal filed objection. The Competent Authority vide order dated 17.10.1978 under Section 8(4) of the Act, 1976 rejected the objection and confirmed the draft statement declaring 9468.95 sq. meter as surplus land in the hands of recorded tenure holder Kashmiri Lal. A revised draft statement dated 29.01.1987 was issued to Kashmiri Lal proposing to declare 39760.30 sq. meter as surplus land in his hands on the ground that he acquired plot no. 1291, 1291/1 and 1294 under the decree of court. Objection was filed by Kashmiri Lal. Competent Authority vide order dated 17.02.1987 partly accepted the objection filed on behalf of Kashmiri Lal and proceeded to declare an area 10685.66 sq. meter land as surplus in his hands. Admittedly, Kashmiri Lal died in the year 1998. In accordance with the pleadings made in the writ petition, the order dated 17.02.1987 was never served upon Kashmiri Lal or the petitioners as his heirs and they had no knowledge about the same. It was only on 10.04.2001 when the present petitioners obtained copy of Khatoni from the Lekhpal then transpired that their names have been deleted and the land has been recorded in the name of State. An appeal under Section 33 of Act, 1976 was filed on 19.04.2001 by the present petitioners. The District Judge vide order dated 23.04.2001 rejected the appeal as not maintainable on the ground that since the Principal Act has been repealed with effect from 18.03.1999, as such, there is no provision of filing an appeal.
(3.) The question of maintainability of an appeal under Section 33 of the Act, 1976 after its repeal with effect from 18.03.1999 has been subject matter of consideration by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Jagdish Chandra, 2013 AIR(All) 152 . The Division Bench after considering the provisions of the Act, 1976, the Repeal Act, 1999, the provisions of the General Clauses Act and various judicial pronouncements has answered the issue as under : I. An appeal under Section 33 of the Act, 1976 against an order passed by the competent authority declaring the land surplus under Section 8(4) of the Act, 1976 cannot be filed after the Repeal Act, 1999. II. The right of appeal under Section 33 of the Act, 1976 is not saved under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 after the Repeal Act, 1999. 3. The issue with respect to maintainability of the appeal under Section 33 of the Act, 1976 after enforcement of the Repeal Act, 1999 having been settled by the aforesaid decision, the challenge made in this case to to the order dated 23.04.2001 passed by the District Judge dismissing the appeal as not maintainable on the ground that it was filed after the enforcement of the Repeal Act, 1999 must fail.;