- (1.) WE have heard? Sri Siddhartha Varma, learned counsel for the petitioners and the? learned Standing Counsel for the respondents -State.
(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that though the land of the petitioners was declared as surplus under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (in short hereinafter referred to as 'Act') but actual physical possession has not been taken and thus they would be entitled to the benefit of sub -section (3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (in short hereinafter referred to as 'Repeal Act').
(3.) SPECIFIC case of the petitioners is that no authority of the Urban Ceiling Office or the Tehsil or any other officials of the State had ever taken possession of the land of the petitioners, which was declared surplus on 29.12.1989 by the Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Bareilly, at any point of time before the enforcement of the U. P. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (Act No. 15 of 1999) or even after that. Despite time having been allowed to the learned Standing Counsel to file counter affidavit vide order dated 15.04.2014 and 09.02.2015, no counter affidavit has been filed and thus the allegations made in the writ petition that possession has not been taken is uncontroverted.;