AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI,J. - (1.) Heard Sri. Mansoor Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Mohan Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri. Ram Raj Singh, learned counsel for Allahabad Development Authority. In spite of the notices having been served and information having been tendered, no one appeared on behalf of the newly impleaded respondent no.5.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed praying for a mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners over the plots in dispute and to expunge the entry in favour of the State Government from Revenue records keeping in view the fact that the land which was declared surplus under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the "1976 Act") remained in the possession of the petitioners and their father as on the date of promulgation of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the "Repeal Act, 1999") in 1999 and therefore they are entitled to retain land as land-holders thereof.
(3.) The petitioners claiming one-fourth share equal to an area of 11404.39 Sq.mts. of the entire plot contending that neither any actual physical possession was taken over from them nor were they ever dispossessed in accordance with law. For this averments contained in the writ petition are that neither any notice was served under Section 10(5) of the 1976 Act on the petitioners or their ancestor Budhani who was the recorded landholder nor was possession delivered voluntarily by them or taken forcibly from them in terms of Section 10(6) of the 1976 Act.;