Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority vs District Judge,Dehradun

Brahma Singh Verma, J.—Heard.

Since, in all these writ petitions, the controversy to be decided is similar and judgment and orders under challenge are same, therefore, all these writ petitions are being decided by this common judgment.

By means of these writ petitions, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 42.8.2002 (Annexure-4) and order dated 28.12.2004 (Annexure-6) passed by respondent no. 1, whereby said court has allowed the appeal filed by respondent no. 2.

For facility, brief facts of Writ Petition No. 1542 of 2005(M/S.) are being taken into consideration:-

One Sri Puran Chand in lieu of the notice issued to him, filed his written objection u/s 6(1) of Urban Land Ceiling Act on 14.8.1976. On this return filed by the objector, the Competent Authority vide its order dated 29.12.1977 held that there does not exists any master plan and the land in dispute is an agricultural land. The Competent Authority vide order dated 31.3.1990 informed Puran Chand that the Survey of the land was to start again and the master plan had been made applicable. The Competent Authority vide judgment dated 26.9.1991 made an order against Puran Chand and the entire land of Khasra no. 712 measuring 0.029 acres and khasra no. 714 measuring 0.05 acre situate in village Kanwali, Pargana Central Doon, District Dehradun was declared surplus; In W.P. No. 1541 of 2005, the Competent Authority vide judgment dated 26.9.1991 made an order against Puran Chand and entire land of Khasra no. 713 measuring 0.0795 acres situate in village Kanwali, Pargana Central Doon, District Dehradun was declared surplus; In W.P. No. 1544 of 2005, the Competent Authority vide judgment dated 26.9.1991 made an order against Puran Chand and entire land of Khasra no. 714 measuring 0.0753 acres situate in village Kanwali, Pargana Central Doon, District Dehradun was declared surplus; In W.P. No. 1545 of 2005, the Competent Authority vide judgment dated 26.9.1991 made an order against Puran Chand and entire land of Khasra no. 714 measuring 0.0792 acres situate in village Kanwali, Pargana Central Doon, District Dehradun was declared surplus; In W.P. No. 1546 of 2005, the Competent Authority vide judgment dated 26.9.1991 made an order against Puran Chand and entire land of Khasra no. 713 measuring 0.077 acres situate in village Kanwali, Pargana Central Doon, District Dehradun was declared surplus).

Being aggrieved by the orders of Competent Authority, the transferee of the plots in land in question (respondent no. 2 herein), filed appeals before the District Judge. Learned District Judge, vide judgment and order dated 12.8.2002, allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment and order dated 26.9.1991 passed by the Competent Authority. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 26.9.1991, the petitioner i.e. M.D.D.A. moved recall application, which was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 28.12.2004. Hence, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner M.D.D.A. has contended that the possession was taken over and handed over to the petitioner by the State.

Learned counsel has further contended that the impugned judgments and orders dated 28.12.2004 has been passed in total disregard of the fact that the possession of the above property was with the petitioner and that no appeal lies u/s 33 of the aforesaid Act. It is contended that the impugned order has been passed without application of mind and in a very arbitrary manner.

Learned counsel has further contended that the appeal was preferred by respondent no. 2 u/s 33 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, after the said Act was repealed, hence the appeal was not maintainable.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 has contended that master plan in District Dehradun was made applicable on 8.5.1995 while the Urban Ceiling Land Act was made applicable in the year 1976 therefore admittedly there was no master plan on the date of application.

Counter affidavit has also been filed by respondent no. 2 wherein it is stated that one Mr. Puran Chand and Mr. Magan Chand was owner in possession of the said agricultural land, including the property in dispute. They submitted their return u/s 6(1) of the Act on 14.8.1976. The competent authority has rejected the return on the ground that the land in question is an agricultural land and their does not exist any master plan in Dehradun and land is exempt from the provisions of said Act. Mr. Pooran Chand has sold his holding vide sale deed dated 6.1.1983 to Mr. Yashpal Garg and Mr. Om Prakash Garg. Other portion of the land in dispute which was previously owned by Mr. Magan Chand was transferred to Ms. Saroj Rani in the year 1982-83 by way of sale deed. The name of Puran Chand and thereafter Yashpal Garg, Om Prakash and Saroj Rani were duly recorded in the revenue record as owner-in-possession of the said land.

Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner in which the contents of the writ petition have been reiterated.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Before the appellate court, the respondent no. 2 had placed reliance upon Smt. Atia Mohammadi Begum Vs. State of U.P. and others[OVERRULED], and State of U.P. Vs. Vinod Chandra Maurya and Others Upon perusal of the said judgments and following their ratio, the appellate court has rightly allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Prescribed Authority. I am in full agreement with the finding given by the appellate court. I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned judgments and orders since admittedly on the date of enforcement of the Act master plan was not applicable and the land was agricultural therefore the Act is not applicable.

In the light of aforesaid, the writ petitions fail and are dismissed.