- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manish Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Shailendra Singh Chauhan, learned Counsel representing respondent No.4.
(2.) According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, although certain vacant land was declared as surplus under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 in the year 1987 but till date the possession has not been taken from the petitioner. Such facts are stated in para - 7 of the petition that the petitioner is still in possession. There are no averments relating to the provisions under Section 10 (5) and 10 (6) of the 1976 Act. However, the argument advanced is that in view of the Repeal Act, 1999 the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit having continued in possession till date and therefore a prayer has been made for an appropriate direction to release the land and to mutate the name of the petitioner on the land declared as surplus. In this regard, we find that the petitioner has submitted a representation to the Collector, Lucknow dated 16.1.2017 which is a part of Annexure - 6 to the petition and according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the said representation is still pending including the previous representations preferred in the year 2016.
(3.) In the said facts, we feel that it would be appropriate that the Additional Collector/Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation, Lucknow/respondent No.2 may take an appropriate decision after considering the material facts and the status of the land in question in the records.;