- (1.) Heard Sri Vijay Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel for petitioner and and learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 to 4.
(2.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed claiming that property in dispute is still in actual physical possession of petitioner and proceedings initiated under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1976"), have abated but respondents are illegally interfering in possession of petitioner.
(3.) Petitioner stated that land in dispute was declared surplus vide order dated 28.09.1982 passed under Section 8(4) of Act, 1976 and thereafter notice under Section 10(5) was issued on 28.12.1992 but actual physical possession of land in dispute was neither voluntarily handed over by predecessor in interest of petitioner nor it was taken forcibly by respondents in any manner. In 1999 with enactment of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the "Repeal Act, 1999") proceedings initiated under Act, 1976 stood abated and thereafter now respondents cannot interfere in actual physical possession of property in dispute.;