- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ram Raj Singh, learned counsel for Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as, 'A.D.A') as well as learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) As the issues involved in the abovementioned writ petitions are identical and the facts in all these writ petitions are also similar, therefore, all the abovementioned writ petitions are being decided by a common judgment. However, the facts of writ petition No. 50519 of 2014 shall be stated and considered in detail. Facts stated in other writ petitions and facts brought on record by the State Government in their counter affidavits and supplementary counter affidavits filed in other writ petitions are almost the same as in the leading writ petition No. 50519 of 2014. It is worthwhile to note that paragraph No. 6 of the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the State Government in writ petition No. 50519 of 2014 has been reproduced in verbatum in the supplementary counter affidavits filed in other three writ petitions and in none of the writ petitions any counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of A.D.A. However, the facts regarding the present situation of the surplus/disputed lands have been admitted by the counsel for A.D.A. during the arguments in all these writ petitions. The only difference in writ petitions relate to the dates regarding proceedings of the Act, 1976 and the case number registered in response to the statement filed by the landholders under Section 6(1) of the Act, 1976.
(3.) In writ petition No. 50519 of 2014 the petitioner has stated that her husband late Mohd. Hafees Ulla was owner of disputed plot declared as surplus under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1976'). The husband of the petitioner had filed his statement under Section 6(1) of the Act, 1976, which was numbered as Case No. K-1762/4880/1976 (State Vs. Hafees Ulla). In the aforesaid case an order was passed under Section 8(4) of the Act, 1976 without issuing any notice under Section 8(3) of the Act, 1976. The said order under Section 8(4) was passed on 15.1.1985 and it has been stated in the writ petition that subsequent to the aforesaid order, notice was issued to the husband of the petitioner under Section 10(5) of the Act, 1976 on 17.5.1996. The petitioner has further stated that the order passed under Section 8(4) of the Act, 1976 was never communicated to her husband disabling him from filing an appeal under Section 33 of the Act, 1976. It is further submitted that husband of the petitioner had never surrendered or delivered possession to the respondent-State Authorities in response to the notice issued under Section 10(5) of the Act, 1976 or otherwise and no forcible possession of the disputed land was taken by the State or any person authorized by it under Section 10(6) of the Act, 1976. However, the petitioner has stated in the writ petition that after the notification issued under Section 10(3) of the Act, 1976 revenue records were revised recording the State Government against the disputed land and merely on the basis of said entries in the revenue records, the State Government is assuming title over the disputed land, even though no possession was ever delivered or forcibly taken over by the State Government. It has been stated in the writ petition that on the cut off date i.e. 18.3.1999, as well as at present, the petitioner and previously the husband of the petitioner was in actual physical possession of the disputed land. The petitioner has contended that in view of the aforesaid facts she is entitled to the benefit of Sections 3/4 of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1999) and as proceedings in Case No. K-1762/4880/1976 have abated, hence mandamus is liable to be issued to the respondents to appropriately correct the revenue records and not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the disputed land.;