Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 384 (ALL)

Kamlesh v. State of U. P. and another

2011-02-17

VIKRAM NATH

body2011
Vikram Nath, J.;- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Goswami, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents. 2. Certain land of the petitioner was declared as surplus vacant land under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Against the said order declaring surplus, the petitioner or the predecessor in interest had filed an appeal which was dismissed, against which a writ petition was filed before this Court, registered as Writ Petition No.12675 of 2000. In the meantime the Act was repealed vide Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Repeal Act). The said writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.3.2004, which is reproduced herein below- ?We have heard Sri L.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ramesh Upadhyay appearing for the respondents. The proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 stands abated in view of the fact that the said Act itself has been repealed by the repealing Act. In the event the petitioner is in possession over the land in question, the possession of the writ petitioner should not be disturbed and the order passed by the respondents shall have not effect. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of." 3. From a perusal of the said order it is apparent that it was passed taking into consideration the effect of the Repeal Act. The Division Bench of this Court had abated the proceedings under the Act. The second part of the order was with regard to the protection of the petitioner's possession. It further provided that the orders passed by the respondents in the said writ petition i.e. the appellate authority and the competent authority would not have any effect. The net result of the said order of the Division Bench would be that the orders declaring the land as surplus would not have any effect and the land would stand restored to the land holder i.e. the petitioner. 4. It appears that thereafter, the petitioner filed an application on 8.1.2008 and again on 4/5.6.2009 for getting his name restored in the revenue records to the Additional Collector (City)/Competent Authority under the Act. 4. It appears that thereafter, the petitioner filed an application on 8.1.2008 and again on 4/5.6.2009 for getting his name restored in the revenue records to the Additional Collector (City)/Competent Authority under the Act. But when no orders were passed they filed writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition No.17278 of 2010. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 8.4.2010, operative portion of the order is produced hereinafter. ?Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction in case if the petitioner files a fresh application under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 before the Tehsildar, Kol, Aligarh (respondent no. 3) along with certified copy of the order of this Court, the said respondent shall submit his report to the Collector within a period of two months and the Collector shall pass appropriate final orders in accordance with law, within two months thereafter." 5. Pursuant to the said order the petitioner filed an application before the Collector under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. The said application has been rejected by the Collector vide order dated 3.1.2011 on the ground that no apparent mistake requiring correction of the records was existing. According to the Collector it is only the competent authority under the Act which could have passed the order for restoration of the name of the petitioner after deleting that of the State in the revenue records and only in pursuance thereto the parwana could have been issued by the said authority. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Collector erred in not restoring the name of the petitioner even though he was the competent authority under the Act. 7. On the other hand Sri Sanjay Goswami, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that the act does not recognize the Collector as the competent authority. According to him the competent authority is designated by a notification. In reply Sri M.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is the Additional Collector (City) who is the competent authority. He has further submitted that his applications for restoration of his name in the revenue records were filed before the Additional Collector (City)/Competent Authority under the Act but no orders have been passed on the same. In reply Sri M.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is the Additional Collector (City) who is the competent authority. He has further submitted that his applications for restoration of his name in the revenue records were filed before the Additional Collector (City)/Competent Authority under the Act but no orders have been passed on the same. Sri Goswami has further submitted that if that be the case then let a direction be issued to the Additional Collector (City)/Competent Authority, Aligarh to pass appropriate orders on the pending applications. 8. In the opinion of the Court the orders which are to be passed are only formal in nature in as much as the Division Bench of this Court had already abated the proceedings under the Act and it further held that the orders passed by the competent authority and the appellate authority would not have any effect. However without going into the issue this petition is disposed of with a direction to the Additional Collector (City)/Competent Authority under the Act, Aligharh to pass appropriate orders on the pending applications of the petitioner dated 8.1.2008 and 4/5.6.2009 in the light of the order of the Division Bench dated 10.3.2004 and the observations made in this order expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order alongwith the copies of the two applications, in accordance with law. 9. Petition stands disposed of as above.