- (1.) Heard Sri Raj Karan Yadav, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
(2.) Grievance raised in present writ petition is that inspite of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the "Repeal Act, 1999") respondents are interfering with possession of petitioner over land which was earlier declared surplus under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation ) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1976"), as if benefit of Repeal Act, 1999 cannot be given to petitioner and land stood vested with State.
(3.) Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that although land in dispute was declared as surplus under Act, 1976 but actual physical possession of land was not taken and, therefore, in the light of Section 3 of Repeal Act, 1999, proceedings under Act, 1976 stood abated. Relevant paragraphs of the writ petition with regard to averments about actual physical possession over land in dispute and proceedings under Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of Act, 1976 are quoted hereunder: "3. That father of petitioner filed a ceiling return/ statement under section 6(1) which is numbered as case no.-K 3376/1976 (State Vs. Lalji) Village and Post Dandi Tehsil Karchhana District Allahabad after that, without service of notice under section 8(3) illegally, order passed under section 8(4) has been passed on 3.8.1986 declaring illegally land of the petitioner as Ceiling land and thereafter illegally notice under section 10(5) prepared on 25.5.1990 which was not served on land holder and further proceeding has been held and respondents have not taken actual physical possession from the land holder and land holder is in actual physical possession over the land continuously from 1976 till the date the father of petitioner died leaving behind Paras Nath and Reghurai as sons and legal heirs. For kind perusal and consideration of this Hon'ble Court a typed and photocopy of the notice under section 10(5) dated 5.5.1990 and Khatauni are being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 1 and 2 to this writ petition. 4. That the petitioner is in actual physical possession over the land respondents never taken possession under section 10(6) and land holder never surrender the land in favour of respondents. 5. That it is specifically pointed out here that on the basis of illegal and without jurisdiction order under Section 8(4) of the Act, competent authority proceeding further under Section 10(3) vesting of title followed by mutation etc., but for taking possession neither notice sent according to Rule to the land holder nor served on land holder, respondents have not taken possession of alleged vacant land as provided under Section 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act, 1976 in other words we can say respondents have not taken any actual physical possession of the vacant land of the petitioner under Section 10(5) and 10(6) except paper possession only issuing of notice under Section 10(5). 6. That the land holder has not surrendered the land to State, and State has not taken actual physical possession form land holder as provided under Section 10(5) and 10(6) and land holder is continuously in possession of all alleged vacant land from 1976 to till date. 7. That respondents are wrongly assume that possession only on the basis of proceeding under Section 10(3) vesting of land followed by mutation in Revenue Records, whereas these proceedings have no concern with possession proceeding under Section 10(5) and 10(6), possession proceeding is quite different in urban land ceiling law.";