JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Dhananjay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri M.C.Chaturvedi, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri J.N.Maurya, Chief Standing Counsel for respondents and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India by two petitioners Ram Singh S/o late Bawl and Smt. Kunti Devi, D/o Late Shambhu stating that they are in possession of land being Gata No. 524 and 525 area 0.0300 and 0.090 hectare and respondents should be restrained from interfering in possession of petitioners and Revenue records should also be corrected by entering name of petitioners. 3. It is said that though aforesaid land was declared surplus but it was not surplus land in view of decision in Case No. 51072 of 1976 (State v. Shambhu). Further possession was not taken by respondents and illegally it has been shown in Revenue record in the name of respondents. 4. Interestingly, in this case, two counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3. The first counter-affidavit is sworn by Yogendra Singh, Tehsildar Sadar, Allahabad on 28.7.2017. It is stated therein that tenure holders Shambhu, Ram Singh and Lala sons of Babau R/o Village Matdeen Ka Pura, Pargana and Tehsil Soraon filed Case No. S-1062 of 1976 under Section 6(1) of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1976”) wherein Surveyor made a survey and submitted report on 16.9.1995. According to report, tenure holders have less land/building than limit of ceiling. Consequently, an order was passed by Competent Authority on 20.9.1995 and file was consigned to record. However, on 11.6.2008, Allotment Committee allotted old Arazi No. 402M situated at Mauja Phaphamau, and after consolidation proceedings, new Araji No. 524 in favour of Commandant, 101 Battalion, C.R.P.F., Rapid Action Force, Phaphamau. Since in Revenue record, State was shown as owner in possession, writ petition filed against respondents 2 and 3 is misconceived on the ground that land in question is in actual possession of 101 Battalion, C.R.P.F., who have raised their boundary and construction thereon. 5. Another counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 sworn by Arvind Kumar Tiwari, Tehsildar, Tehsil Soraon, District Allahabad in view of the fact that this Court, when examined the matter on 8.9.2017, found averments made in earlier counter-affidavit vague, incomplete and incoherent. This affidavit has been sworn on 3.11.2017. 5. Another counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 sworn by Arvind Kumar Tiwari, Tehsildar, Tehsil Soraon, District Allahabad in view of the fact that this Court, when examined the matter on 8.9.2017, found averments made in earlier counter-affidavit vague, incomplete and incoherent. This affidavit has been sworn on 3.11.2017. It is said that proceedings under Act, 1976 were initiated to declare surplus land of Gata No. 402M, 493/1M, 493/2, 488M, 487M, 385A, 385/2 situated in Phaphamau, Tehsil Soraon, District Allahabad. The tenure holders of aforesaid Gatas were Shambhu, Ram Singh and Lala, sons of Babau, resident of Matadeen Ka Pura, Tehsil Soraon, District Allahabad. They filed return under Section 6(1) of Act, 1976 and it was registered as Case No. S-1062 of 1976 on 30.8.1976. Surveyor submitted report on 16.9.1995 to the effect that tenure holders have land/building less than ceiling limit. 6. On 20.9.1995, Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Allahabad passed order dropping ceiling proceedings in respect of Gata Nos. 524 and 525. Simultaneously, ceiling proceedings were also initiated in respect of land of Gata Nos. 120M, 297, 1035/3, 1036/4 in respect whereto tenure holder Sri Bawl son of Thakur Deen filed return under Section 6(1) of Act, 1976 registered as Case No. 3957 of 1976. After survey report, an order was passed under Section 8(4) of Act, 1976 on 28.11.1978 declaring 5054.22 Sq.Meter land of tenure holder Bawl son of Thakur Deen surplus. Thereafter, notification under Sections 10(1) and 10(3) of Act, 1976 were issued and published in official gazette on 6.7.1987 and 29.10.1993 respectively. Notice under Section 10(5) of Act, 1976 was issued on 8.11.1995 requesting tenure holder to hand over possession of land to Competent Authority. During consolidation proceedings of concerned area, Gata No. 402M situated in Phaphamau, Tehsil Soraon, District Allahabad was renumbered as Gata Nos. 524 and 525. 7. Then explaining that petitioners were not tenure holder of Gata No. 524 and 525, in paras 10 to 13, respondents have said : “10. During consolidation proceedings of concerned area, Gata No. 402M situated in Phaphamau, Tehsil Soraon, District Allahabad was renumbered as Gata Nos. 524 and 525. 7. Then explaining that petitioners were not tenure holder of Gata No. 524 and 525, in paras 10 to 13, respondents have said : “10. That subsequently in the office report dated 16.7.2002 and 28.1.2008, the land of Gata No. 524 and 525 area 0.030 hectare and 0.034 hectare (old Gata No. 402 M) of tenure holders namely Sri Lala and Shambhu both sons of Sri Bawl situated in Phaphamau were shown in Case No. 3957/1976 (State v. Bawl) whereas the aforesaid Gatas were in Case No. S-1062 of 1976 (State v. Shambhu, Ram Singh, Lala all sons of Babau). On the basis of aforesaid office reports dated 16.7.2002 and 28.10.2008 a meeting was held under the Chairmanship of District Magistrate, Allahabad and considering the facts that proceedings under Sections 10(1), 10(3) and 10(5) of the Act of 1976 has already been concluded in respect of land mentioned in Case No. 3957/1976, decision was taken on 11.6.2008 to allot the land of Gata Nos. 524 and 525 in favour of C.R.P.F., Rapid Action Force, Phaphamau, Allahabad in accordance with the provisions of Government order No. 559/Forty ine-109, U.C./81, dated 27.2.1984. Copy of Minutes of Meeting dated 11.6.2008 is being annexed herewith and is marked as Annexure CA-3 to this counter-affidavit. 11. That it is relevant to submit here that the petitioner No. 1 Ram Singh son of Bawl as well as petitioner No. 2 Kunti Devi D/o Late Shambhu were not the tenure holder of Gata No. 524 and 525 situated in Phaphamau, Tehsil Soraon, District Allahabad (old Gata No. 402). Infact, as per Case No. S-1062 of 1976 filed under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land Ceiling (Limit & Regulation) Act, 1976 the tenure holders of aforesaid Gatas were Sri Shambhu, Sri Ram Singh & Sri Lala all sons of Babau. Therefore, the petitioners have no right to claim the mutation of their names in revenue records over the Gata Nos. 524 and 525 after deleting the name of the Urban Land Ceiling, Allahabad or to claim any compensation in respect of the land when was never their holdings. 12. Therefore, the petitioners have no right to claim the mutation of their names in revenue records over the Gata Nos. 524 and 525 after deleting the name of the Urban Land Ceiling, Allahabad or to claim any compensation in respect of the land when was never their holdings. 12. That it is relevant to mention here in both the returns filed under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land Ceiling (Limit & Regulation) Act, 1976 registered as Case No. S-1062 of 1976 and Case No. 3957 of 1976 Gata numbers were different. For kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court, the details of Gata numbers in both the returns registered as Case No. S-1062 of 1976 and Case No. 3957 of 1976 are as under: fjVuZ la[;k ,l&071062@1976 ljdkj cuke 'kEHkw yky] jke flaag iq= ccÅ fuoklh&ekrknhu dk iwjk] rglhy lksjkao] bykgkcknA fjVuZ la[;k ,l&3957@1976 ljdkj cuke ckmy iq= Bkdqjnhu fuoklh&QkQkem] erlhy lksjkao] ftyk&bykgkcknA iqjkuh xkVk la[;k ubZ xkVk la[;k iqjkuh xkVk la[;k ubZ xkVk la[;k 488 feŒtqŒ] 487 feŒtqŒ] 385@,Œ] 385@2 527 120 tqt Hkkx 287 1035@3] 1036@4 308] 931] 1021 d] [k 402 feŒtqŒ] 493@1 feŒtqŒ] 493@2 524] 525 8¼1½ ds vUrxZr losZ;j ,oa lgk;d vfHk;Urk dh vk[;k ds Øe esa fu;r izkf/kdkjh }kjk i=koyh nkf[ky n¶rj dh x;hA orZeku [krkSuh esa mijksDr xkVs lhfyax ds [kkrs ds vUrxZr [kkrk la[;k&2 ij ntZ gS rFkk vkjŒ,Œ,QŒ dh ckm.Mªh ds vUrxZr gSA orZeku [krkSuh QkQkeÅ] rglhy lksjkao [kkrk la[;k&1 ij mijksDr xkVS bykgkckn fodkl izkfèkdj.k rFkk vkcknhA [kkrk la[;k&385 ij ntZ gSA ¼m)oj.k [krkSuh] lhŒ,pŒ&41 o 45 dh izfr layXu gSA½ tks vkjŒ,Œ,QŒ ds dCts ds vUrxZr ugha gSA èkkjk&10 ¼5½ rd dh dk;Zokgh lEikfnr gSA 13. That in the background of the aforesaid facts to ascertain as to whether the petitioner No. 1 Sri Ram Singh S/0 Late bawl is the tenure holder of Gata Nos. 524 and 525 (old Gata No. 402M) and under what circumstances, the land of Gata Nos. 524 and 525 was included in the category of surplus land whereas, the ceiling proceedings in respect of old Gata No. 402M has already been dropped, District Level Three Members Committee has been constituted by the District Magistrate, Allahabad vide order dated 1.11.2017. Copy of order dated 1.11.2017 passed by the District Magistrate, Allahabad is being annexed herewith and is marked as Annexure CA-4 to this counter-affidavit.” 8. Copy of order dated 1.11.2017 passed by the District Magistrate, Allahabad is being annexed herewith and is marked as Annexure CA-4 to this counter-affidavit.” 8. It is also stated that land in question was allotted to C.R.P.F. and in possession thereof since 2008. 9. Replying paras 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 of the writ petition respondents 2 and 3 in paras 15, 16, 18 and 19 have said as under : “15. That the contents of paragraph No. 3 of the writ petition as stated are not admitted hence denied. In reply thereto it is submitted that tenure holder Sri Bawl son of Thakur Deen has filed return under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land Ceiling (Limit & Regulation) Act, 1976 registered as Case No. 3957 of 1976 in respect of Gata No. 120(M), 297, 1035/3, 1036/4. After the survey report, order under Section 8(4) of the Act of 1976 was passed on 28.11.1978 declaring 5054.22 square meter land of tenure holder Bawl son of Thakur Deen as surplus. Thereafter notifications under Section 10(1) and 10(3) of the Act of 1976 were issued and published in official gazette on 6.7.1987 and 29.10.1993 respectively and the land was vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances. Thereafter notice under Section 10(5) of the Act of 1976 was issued on 8.11.1995 for handing over possession of land which has been declared as surplus. Thus the entire proceedings under the Act of 1976 were concluded prior to repeal of Ceiling Act by Repeal Act, 1999 which was made effective from 18.3.1999. It is also relevant to submit here that on the basis of aforesaid office reports dated 16.7.2002 and 28.10.2008 a meeting was held under the Chairmanship of District Magistrate, Allahabad and considering the facts that proceedings under Sections 10(1), 10(3) and 10(5) of the Act of 1976 has already been concluded in respect of land mentioned in Case No. 3957/1976, decision was taken on 11.6.2008 to allot the land of Gata Nos. 524 and 525 in favour of C.R.P.F., Rapid Action Force, Phaphamau, Allahabad and since then the land in question is in actual and physical possession of Commandant 101 Battalion, C.R.P.F., Rapid Action Force, Phaphamau, Allahabad and not in the possession of the petitioners. 16. That the contents of paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 of the writ petiton as stated are not admitted hence denied. 16. That the contents of paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 of the writ petiton as stated are not admitted hence denied. In report thereto it is submitted that in the revenue report (Khatauni of Fasli years 1412-1417), the name of State Government is entered over the Gata Nos. 524 and 525 (old Gata No. 402M) and as per decision of the committee headed by the District Magistrate, Allahabad, the land of aforesaid Gatas was allotted in favour of the C.R.P.F., Rapid Action Force, Phaphamau, Allahabad. Copy of Khatauni of Fasli years 1412-1417 is being annexed herewith and is marked as Annexure CA-5 to this counter-affidavit.” “18. That the contents of paragraph Nos. 9 and 10 of the writ petition as stated are not admitted hence denied. In reply thereto it is submitted that on the basis of aforesaid office reports dated 16.7.2002 and 28.10.2008 a meeting was hold under the Chairmanship of district Magistrate, Allahabad and considering the facts that proceedings under Sections 10(1), 10(3) and 10(5) of the Act of 1976 has already been concluded in respect of land mentioned in return filed under Section 6(1) of the Act registered as No. 3957/1976, decision was taken on 11.6.2008 to allot the land of Gata Nos. 524 and 525 in favour of C.R.P.F., Rapid Action Force, Phaphamau, Allahabad in accordance with the provisions of Government order No. 559/Forty ine-109, U.C./81, dated 27.2.1984. 19. That the contents of paragraph Nos. 11, 12 and 13 of the writ as stated are not admitted hence denied. In reply thereto it is submitted that the petitioner No. 1 Ram Singh son of Bawl as well as petitioner No. 2 Kunti Devi D/o Late Shambhu were not the tenure holder of Gata No. 524 and 525 situated in Phaphamau, Tehsil Soraon, District Allahabad (old Gata No. 402M). In fact, as per return filed under Section 6(1) of the Act registered as Case No. S-1062 of 1976 the tenure holders of aforesaid Gatas were Sri Shambhu, Sri Ram Singh & Sri Lala all sons of Babau. Therefore, the petitioners have no right to claim the mutation of their names in revenue records over the Gata Nos. 524 and 525 after deleting the name of the Urban Land Ceiling, Allahabad or to claim any compensation in respect of the land which was never their holdings.” 10. Therefore, the petitioners have no right to claim the mutation of their names in revenue records over the Gata Nos. 524 and 525 after deleting the name of the Urban Land Ceiling, Allahabad or to claim any compensation in respect of the land which was never their holdings.” 10. In the rejoinder-affidavit sworn on 10th November, 2017, petitioners have stated that Gata Nos. 524 and 525 were exempted from ceiling proceedings. Petitioners, therefore, are entitled for correction in Revenue record and also for restoration of possession. However, in para 7, they have stated for the first time that Babau is popularly known and called by villagers as “Bawl”. Petitioners have given pedigree in para 15 of the rejoinder-affidavit as under: Babau Shambhu (died) + Kewla Devi (died) Lala (died) + Rajpati (died) Ram Singh Smt. Sunita Devi Smt. Kunti Devi 11. The aforesaid facts make it very clear that petitioners are raising serious disputed question with regard to identity of land, relationship with the person to whom land in dispute belong and also have concealed the fact that land in question was already given in possession of respondents 4 and 5. If there was any change in Revenue record, period and time thereof has not been stated and it appears that seriously disputed question of fact, which could have been settled in common law proceedings, have sought to be raised in this writ petition and that too with a long delay and laches. 12. We may also observe though we are not recording any final opinion on the merit but the fact is that petitioners not in possession over land in dispute for last almost more than a decade, hence remedy in common law also may have become barred by limitation. Therefore, a clandestine mischievous attempt has been made for overcoming all these difficulties by filing this writ petition. Petitioners have also not stated anywhere as to when they were dispossessed de facto since admittedly land in question is in possession of respondents. 13. In that view of the matter, writ petition seeking correction in Revenue record or for restoration of possession is misconceived. As remedy lies elsewhere under common law and if the same have become barred by limitation, our observations will not confer any benefit upon petitioners so as to resurrect an issue for the purpose whereof remedy has already lost by application of law of limitation. 14. As remedy lies elsewhere under common law and if the same have become barred by limitation, our observations will not confer any benefit upon petitioners so as to resurrect an issue for the purpose whereof remedy has already lost by application of law of limitation. 14. Subject to aforesaid observation, the writ petition is dismissed.