- (1.) Heard Sri Raj Karan Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Satendra Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Vivek Verma for the respondent no. 3. Both the respondents have filed their counter affidavits, and the rejoinder affidavit have also been filed by the petitioners. Upon exchange of affidavits, the Court after having noticed the allegations and counter allegations vide order dated 2nd April, 2018 had summoned the original records. The order dated 02.04.2018 is extracted hereinunder:- "Heard Sri Raj Karan Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.K. Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1. This matter has been taken up on several occasions in order to produce the original record to find out as to whether the actual physical possession has been taken from the petitioners or not by complying with the provisions of possession under Section 10 (6) of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Learned Standing Counsel states that the records are not available today. We have perused the affidavits filed on behalf of the State and Development Authority both, where the notices up to the stage of section 10 (5) of Urban land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 have been brought on record. There is no material to indicate the taking over of the possession through the process as provided for under Section 10 (6) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Consequently, let the records be produced on the next date fixed. Sri S.K.Shukla, learned Standing Counsel submits that the matter may be taken up on 9th April, 2018. Let the matter come up on 9th April, 2018."
(2.) The records have been produced and what emerges from the records is that these proceedings that arise out of declaration of land as surplus under The Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Act, 1976 have been instituted with a view to seek benefit of the Repeal Act, namely, The Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. The contention raised is that the petitioners continue to be in uninterrupted actual physical possession of the land that was declared surplus even on the date of the promulgation of the Repeal Act, and therefore, they are entitled to retain the said land, keeping in view the benefits arising therefrom. For this, reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the Apex Court decision in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Hari Ram, 2013 AIR(SC) 1793 and that of Mangalsen Vs. State of U.P. & Another, 2014 15 SCC 332. There are other judgments following the said decision of this Court, as well, that have also been relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
(3.) The short question to be examined in this case is, as to whether, the proceedings of service of notice and taking over of possession have been complied with according to the statutory provisions of Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the 1976 Act or not.;