Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3729 (ALL)

NARESH v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-11-17

ARUN TANDON, SUNITA AGARWAL

body2016
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to not to dispossess the petitioner from the disputed Plot No. 868-A, 868-B, village-Sonakpur, tehsil and district- Moradabad in view of the fact that the entire ceiling proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 stand repealed under the U.P. Act No. 15 of 1999. Fact in short, as stated in the writ petition are that the proceedings under the Act of 1976 were initiated against the recorded tenure holder, namely Poosa, the grandfather of the petitioners. An order dated 29.08.1977 was made declaring an area of 12250.07 sq. mt. as surplus in the hands of the recorded tenure holder. Proceedings up to the stage of notice under Section 10(5) having been taken in respect of the surplus land are admitted on record. According to the petitioners since actual possession had not been taken before the enforcement of Repeal Act of 1999, the entire proceedings lapse and the respondents cannot now interfere with the possession of the petitioners over the surplus land. A counter affidavit has been filed and it has been stated that the recorded tenure holder did not challenge the order dated 29.08.1977 at any point of time. A notice under Section 10(1) was published in the official gazette on 27.08.1978 and the notice under Section 10(3) of the Act was published in the official gazette on 21.12.1985. Thereafter a notice under Section 10(5) was issued to the tenure holder on 28.02.1986 and that actual possession was taken over by the Tehsildar on 01.04.1986 and the name of the State Government was recorded in the relevant revenue records. It is then stated that this surplus land was transferred to Moradabad Development Authority on 15.09.1988 and 31.11.2001. Compensation in respect of the land under Section 11(8) was determined on 12.03.1987 and was paid to the tenure holder through voucher no. 80 dated 27.03.1987, total compensation being Rs. 12,133.70. It has been then stated that the remaining part of the plot, from which the surplus area was carved out, was sold by the petitioner himself to the Development Authority vide sale deed dated 13.10.2009 and in the boundaries of the property so transferred, the land, which was subject matter of ceiling proceedings, has specifically been shown as a ceiling land. Reference- page 29 of the counter affidavit. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioners were actually dispossessed from the land and they were aware of such dispossession, which fact is reflected from the sale deed of the remaining land executed in the year 2009. It is further pointed out that if Moradabad Development Authority had not taken possession of the land as declared surplus to the extent of 12250.70 sq. mt. from the plot referred to above, there was no occasion for the Moradabad Development Authority to purchase the remaining land of the same plot of an area 0-0651 hectare only by means of sale deed dated 13.10.2009. The petitioner could not dispute that there was sale of the remaining land of the same plot to the Moradabad Development Authority and the acceptance of the compensation determined under Section 11(8) of the Act of 1976. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the records of the writ petition, we are more than satisfied that the records do reflect that the possession of the surplus land had been taken prior to the enforcement of the Repeal Act of 1999 and from the conduct of the petitioners, as reflects from the sale deed as well as in the matter of acceptance of compensation, it can be inferred that they were aware of such dispossession of the surplus land. Learned Standing Counsel also points out that after taking possession development of the land has already taken place to a large extent. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands discharged.