- (1.) Heard Sri Atul Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri B. K. Ojha, learned counsel appearing for Allahabad Development Authority. Dispute is in respect of plot no. 485, 486, 487/1, 487/2, 489, 491 and 592 situate in village Devarakh Uparhar Pargana Arail, Tehcil Karchhana, District Allahabad. The aforesaid plots were declared surplus in the hands of recorded tenure holder Saiku, grand father of the petitioner, vide order dated 19.12.1979 passed by the U. P. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976,(hereinafter referred to as "Act 1076"), who is alleged to have died on 06.02.1980. Further case set up by the petitioner is that on attaining knowledge of the order dated 19.12.1979, the petitioner made a restoration application in 1997 which was dismissed by the competent authority, against which Appeal no. 26 of 1997 was filed before the District Judge, Allahabad. The said appeal was allowed by the District Judge, Allahabad vide judgment and order dated 22.07.1997 setting aside the order dated 31.01.1997 dismissing the recall application as well as exparte order dated 19.12.1997 and the matter was remanded back to the competent authority to decide the surplus land in the hands of the appellant afresh in accordance with law.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the averments made in the writ petition and the supplementary affidavit contends that thereafter no proceedings were undertaken and after enforcement of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (herein after referred to as Repeal Act, 1999), entire proceedings stood abated by operation of law and thus, the respondents cannot interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute. It is further submitted that once the order declaring the land as surplus was set aside, it was incumbent upon the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings and unless the competent authority determined the surplus area and notification was issued under Section 10 (3) of the Act 1976, vesting the surplus land in State and actual physical possession was taken over by the State by issuing notice under Section 10 (5) or forceful possession under section 10 (6) of the Act 1976 and before the aforesaid proceedings could be undertaken the Repeal Act 1999 was enforced and thus, there is no surplus land over which the State can have any claim.
(3.) Facts in this regard are mentioned in the writ petition and supplementary affidavit that no further proceedings were taken after the appellate order dated 22.07.1997 have not been denied in the counter affidavit though averments have been made in the counter affidavit that possession was taken much before the appellate order was passed in pursuance of notice under Section 10 (5) of the Act but no documentary evidence either the notice under Section 10 (5) or possession memo has been filed along with the counter affidavit.;