Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) Heard Sri A.R. Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
(2.) The sole petitioner Basantu @ Bakhedu Son of Bachanu Ram Yadav has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking a mandamus commanding respondents not to interfere in physical possession of petitioner over Plot No. 297 area 0.36 Sq. M., Plot No.541 area 2.47 acre, Plot No.71 area 1.16 acre, Plot No.226 area 0.42 decimal, Plot No.20 area 10 decimal, Plot No.21 area 16 decimal, Plot No.32 area 26 decimal, Plot No.46 area 10 decimal, Plot No.42 area 47 decimal, Plot No.49 area 27 decimal, Plot No.62/1 area 11 decimal, Plot No.256 area 42 decimal, Plot No.27 area 1.31 acre, Plot No.30 area 53 decimal, Plot No.31 area 43 decimal, Plot No.290 area 22 decimal, Plot No.490 area 66 decimal, Plot No.288 area 29 decimal, Plot No.296 area 36 decimal, Plot No.285 area 45 decimal, Plot No.286 area 48 decimal, Plot No.289 area 35 decimal, total 44409.77 Sq.M. situated in village Parshurampur, Tehsil Sadar, District Varanasi since actual physical possession of aforesaid land was not taken by respondents despite declaration of land surplus under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1976") and proceedings had abated after enactment of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the "Repeal Act, 1999").
(3.) The facts in brief as stated in the writ petition are that petitioner is owner of land in dispute situated in village Parshurampur, Tehsil Sadar, District Varanasi. Proceedings under Act, 1976 were initiated by Competent Authority, Urban Ceiling, Varanasi by issuing notice under Section 8(3) of Act, 1976. An order was passed on 07.07.1980 under Section 8(4) of Act, 1976 declaring total 44409.77 Sq.M. of land, surplus. No compensation was paid to petitioner. A notice under Section 10(5) of Act, 1976 was issued, but actual physical possession was not taken by respondents and it continued with petitioner after enforcement of Repeal Act, 1999. Thus, by virtue of Section 3 of Repeal Act, 1999, ceiling proceedings stood abated and thereafter respondents had no authority to interfere with possession of petitioner over land in dispute.;