- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
(2.) It seems that on an earlier occasion the State was called upon to get with itself the records available in order to assist the Court as no supporting document had been filed along with the counter-affidavit to establish that the possession had been taken over from the petitioner. However, learned Standing Counsel submits that he has a copy of the notice under Section 10(5) with him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a certified copy of the notice under Section 10(5) as also of the possession memo which has been made the basis to claim that the possession was taken from the petitioner on 29th October, 1992. Since, certified copies are before the Court same can be taken cognizance of.
(3.) Contention of the petitioner is that the disputed land of the petitioner, came to be declared surplus against which an appeal had been filed under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 that was pending. It is during the pendency of the appeal that the Repeal Act came into effect on 20th March, 1999. The appeal stood abated and thereafter the petitioner proceeded for retention of the land in terms of the Repeal Act. It is urged that the learned District Judge, Saharanpur wrongly held that since the Act has been repealed therefore the appeal was liable to be rejected, but to the contrary the appeal could have been abated and not rejected. Prayer has been made to quash the District Judge's order dated 04.01.2001 as also the order whereby the land was declared surplus.;