High CourtsDivision Bench

Smt. Lajjavati vs State of U.P.

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 24 November 2010 · Citation: (2011) 6 RCR(Civil) 2393 : (2011) 112 RD 769

HON’BLE JUDGES
Virendra Kumar Dixit, J · Devi Prasad Singh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 — Section 10(3), 10(5) · Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 — Section 4
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 10499 of 2008 (M/B)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 437 words

Devi Prasad Singh and Virendra Kumar Dixit, JJ.—Learned Counsel for parties agree that the cause of action impugned in this writ petition is covered by the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in Writ Petition No. 2596 (MB) of 2009. Learned Counsel also submitted that the physical possession of the land has not yet been taken.

2.

The aforesaid order on reproduction reads as under:

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and learned Standing Counsel.

With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is being decided finally.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that proceedings have been initiated under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976 and the land, which has been declared surplus, the possession of the same has not been taken over. During the pendency of the proceedings, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976 was repealed and Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Repeal Act, 1999 provides for abatement of the legal proceedings.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners also submits that the Apex Court in the case of Pt. Madan Swarup Shronya, Public Charitable Trust v. Store of U.P. and Ors. 2000 (39) ALR 327 (SC) has held that if possession has been taken over by the State Government, then the proceedings under the Act will not abate but if the possession has not been taken over, the proceedings shall abate. We make it clear that the word possession means actual physical possession. Hence if actual physical possession has been taken over, the proceedings shall not abate otherwise they will abate.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that in view of the aforesaid legal position, the writ petition may be allowed as the proceedings initiated stand abated.

Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the aforesaid facts.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. The Respondents are directed not to disturb the peaceful possession of the Petitioners over Khata No. 457 comprising of khurra plot Nos. 979, 980, 981, 842 and 942 situated in village Bijnaur, Pargana Bijnaur, Tehsil and District Lucknow, declared as surplus land under the provisions of Sections 10(3) and 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976 and further to correct revenue records on necessary steps being taken by the Petitioner in that respect.

3.

Thus, we allow the writ petition in same terms as mentioned in the aforesaid order except with change of description of the land being Plot No. 406/7, 406/13m, area being 3510.01 Square Meter situated in the village Barrura Husain Bari, Tehsil Sadar, District Lucknow.

4.

With the aforesaid directions, writ petition is disposed of.