- (1.) THE petitioner is the wife of Dr. Prem Chand Mehrotra who died on 24.6.2005. Dr. P.C. Mehrotra was lessee of Bungalow No. 10, Elgin Road, Allahabad who obtained two separate lease deeds in respect of the land in question and copies of the said lease deeds have been filed as Annexures 2 and 3 to the writ petition. THE petitioner applied for free hold after the death of her husband which was not being considered as a result whereof she filed Writ Petition No. 40945 of 2008 in which the following orders were passed on 11.8.2008 : 1. "Heard Mr. Ashwani Kumar Misra in support of this petition, Sri Chandra Shekhar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for State of U.P. appears for the respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner wants to deposit the conversion charges for converting the concerned land into free hold. The respondents will receive the amount, if so deposited today during the course of the day. The deposit and receipt will be both without prejudice. The matter may be listed on 1st September, 2008 Sd. H.L.Gokhale, C.J. Sd. Vineet Saran, J." 2. It is during these proceedings that the petitioner's application for free hold has not been processed on the ground that the land in question has been declared surplus under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Accordingly, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking an appropriate writ or direction for restraining the respondents from interfering with the right, title and possession of the petitioner in respect of the land in question and for a declaration that the ceiling proceedings as relied upon by the respondents be declared to have abated and lapsed by virtue of the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. The petition was entertained and a counter affidavit was called for which has been filed on behalf of the State through Devendra Singh, Assistant Engineer, Urban Land. Ceiling, Allahabad. A rejoinder affidavit to the said counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 4. In order to appreciate the controversy, the minimum necessary facts may be stated. The proceedings under the Urban Ceiling Act were initiated against late Dr. P.C. Mehrotra the husband of the petitioner in the year 1982 and after a response was filed by him, an order was passed on 26.3.1984 declaring an area of 3203.76 sq. m. as excess vacant land under the said Act. The said order was an ex-parte order which on an application, was set aside and the matter was rest order on 16.10.84. Again an ex-parte order was passed on 22.6.1987. These facts are borne out from the records which have been produced by the learned Standing Counsel and had been retained by us for delivery of judgment. It appears that thereafter a publication was made under Section 10(3) of the Urban Ceiling Act on 31.5.1997 followed by an alleged proceeding of taking possession on paper under Section 10(5) of the Urban Ceiling Act the document whereof is dated 22.6.1997. This appears to have been followed by a notice under Section 11 (8) of the said Act on 28.7.1998 calling upon the assessee/occupant to receive compensation. When this notice appears to have been served on the petitioner's late husband, a detailed objection was filed on 30.11.1998 which is also borne out from the records produced by the learned Standing Counsel.
(3.) THE aforesaid objection clearly stated that the proceedings were ex-parte and neither any information was tendered with regard to the aforesaid facts nor possession was taken from the land holder. It was further requested that the matter be restored and an appropriate order be passed on merits. On this objection, the counsel for the State/Urban Land Ceiling Authority Sri R.B. Vidhyarthi endorsed a no objection on 18.3.1999 with a request that the matter be restored and it be heard on merits. THE endorsement is available on the records. THEreafter, an application was filed by the same Standing Counsel Sri R.B. Vidhyarthi on 15.4.1999 narrating the aforesaid facts and admitting on behalf of the land ceiling authority that no possession had been taken by the Department and, therefore, the land holder be given the benefit of the 1999 Repeal Act treating the proceedings to have abated as nothing could be done further. From the counter affidavit it further appears that the said land according to the State Government, after the notice under Section 10(5) was handed over to the Development Authority and the Development Authority wrote a letter to the District Magistrate informing him that a decision had been taken to auction the property referred to in the said letter dated 25.3.2000, after publication in the newspaper and which refers to the property of the petitioner in question also along with the other properties. The counter affidavit indicates nothing further as to what happened after the said auction notice nor is there any indication of the settlement of the property with any third party nor in any records produced by the learned Standing Counsel.;