- (1.) In this writ application, petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 26.3.2007 whereby the representation of the petitioner filed before the District Magistrate, Varanasi has been rejected. Petitioner further prayed for quashing of the entire proceedings of Case No.666/2577/81-82, initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1976') by declaring that the said proceeding had abated under Section 4 of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Repeal Act'). The petitioner also prayed that a writ of mandamus may be issued restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute.
(2.) Sans unnecessary details, the facts of the case is that the petitioner being the owner of the land, pertaining to plot nos. 281, 251 and 8 situated in village Karaundi and Susuwahi respectively of the District Varanasi, had given details of the land under Section 6 (1) of the Act of 1976 as demanded by the respondents. It appears that the respondent-authority initiated a proceeding under the provisions of the Act of 1976 vide Case No.666/2577/81-82 against the petitioner and issued notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why the land in question be not declared surplus. It appears that the respondent-authority passed order on 10.6.1981 declaring 1575.22 sq. meter of land of plot no.281, 159.27 sq. meter of land of plot no.251 of village Karaundi and 25 decimal land of plot no.8 of village Susuwahi of the District Varanasi as surplus land. It then appears that by an order passed under Section 10 (3) of the Act of 1976, the aforesaid surplus land declared to have vested in the State of U.P. with effect from 31.1.1998. Thereafter a notice, under Section 10 (5) of the Act of 1976 issued on 21.3.1998 and the petitioner was directed to handover the possession of above surplus land within 30 days from the date of notice, otherwise a proceeding under Section 10 (6) of the Act of 1976 will be initiated against the petitioner for taking forceful possession.
(3.) It is stated by the petitioner that in compliance of notice issued under Section 10 (5) of the Act of 1976, she had not surrendered and/or delivered possession of the land to the respondents. It is further stated that the respondents had not taken forceful possession of the land in question under Section 10 (6) of the Act of 1976. It is stated that the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulations) Repeal Act, 1999 had come into force w.e.f. 22.3.1999, whereby the Act of 1976 has been repealed. It is stated that as per Section 4 of the Repeal Act, proceeding pending against the petitioner had abated. It is stated that petitioner filed a writ application in this Court vide Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.6804 of 2005 for restraining the respondents from taking possession of the surplus land. The aforesaid writ application disposed of by this Court vide order dated 22.2.2005 and the petitioner was directed to file a representation before the District Magistrate, Varanasi for redressal of her grievances and the District Magistrate, Varanasi was directed to dispose of the representation within three months. It appears that in pursuance of above direction, the petitioner filed a representation on 30.8.2005. The aforesaid representation rejected by the District Magistrate, Varanasi vide order dated 26.3.2007 on the ground that the land in question vested in the State of U.P. and the same has already published in the Govt. Gazette on 31.1.1998 and thereafter notice under Section 10 (5) of the Act of 1976 issued on 21.3.1998 and the name of U.P. Government already mutated in the revenue records, therefore, possession of the land already taken before coming into force of Repeal Act, thus the proceeding initiated under the Act of 1976 has not abated. The aforesaid order challenged in this writ application.;