Shyam Lal v. State of U.P.). The said appeal was allowed vide the order dated

HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents.

2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the father of the petitioner, namely Sri Shyam Lal son of Sukhdev @ Sukhkhu was recorded as one of the tenure holders of Arazi No. 83/4M and Arazi No. 75/3 situated in Village-Nathupur, Pargana-Dehat Amanat, Tehsil and District Varanasi and tenure holder of Arazi No. 399/5, situated in Village-Bhulanpur, Pargana-Dehat Amanat, District-Varanasi.

3. The proceedings under Section 8(4) were initiated against Sri Shyam Lal under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' 1976). The Competent Authority vide ex-parte order dated 25.09.1981 had declared

348.13 sq. meter of land as surplus. Subsequently, Sri Shyam Lal had filed an application for recall of ex-parte order dated

25.09.1981. However, the same was also rejected vide order dated 13.05.1992.

4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 13.05.1992, Sri Shyam Lal 2 WRIC No. 29198 of 2025 had filed an appeal which was registered as Ceiling Appeal No. 34 of 1994 (Shyam Lal Vs. State of U.P.). The said appeal was allowed vide the order dated 25.04.1994 and the orders dated

13.05.1992 and 25.09.1981 were set aside and the Competent Authority was directed to proceed afresh in the matter in accordance with law.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that nothing had happened thereafter and the proceedings against Sri Shyam Lal stood abated with the coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. It is also stated that, in the meanwhile, Sri Shyam Lal passed away leaving behind the petitioner, being his daughter as his sole legal heir and successor.

6. The petitioner had filed the present writ petition being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in not recording the land, morefully detailed above, in her name in the revenue records despite the proceedings under the Act, 1976 initiated against the father of the petitioner having been abated with the coming into force of the Repeal Act, 1999 and the petitioner having filed a representation in that regard before the respondents but the same being of no avail.

7. This Court vide order dated 18.09.2025 had granted time to the learned standing counsel to seek instructions in the matter.

8. Learned standing counsel has placed the instructions dated

06.10.2025 submitted by the Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Varanasi, before this Court today and the same are taken on record. The relevant part of the instructions submitted on behalf of the respondents read as under: "अवगत कराना है िक अबर्न सीिलग वाद संख्या-514/66/81-82 राज्य सरकार बनाम श्यामलाल पुत्र सुक्खू, िन. भूलनपुर परगना-देहात अमानत, वाराणसी में अबर्न सीिलग अिधिनयम, 1976 की धारा-8(4) के अन्तगर्त सक्षम प्रािधकारी द्वारा िनयमानुसार िदनांक 25.09.1981 को आदेश पािरत कर ग्राम-नाथूपुर, परगना देहात अमानत िजला वाराणसी िस्थत आराजी 3 WRIC No. 29198 of 2025 संख्या-िम० 83/4 रकबा-70िड० का 1/3 यानी 944.30 वगर्मीटर में से रकबा 348.13 वगर्मीटर भूिम अितिरक्त िरक्त घोिषत िकया गया, िजसके सम्बन्ध में धारा-९ की कायर्वाही के पश्चात धारा-10(1) एवं 10(3) के अन्तगर्त प्रेिषत िकये गये िवज्ञिप्त का प्रकाशन राजकीय गजट में क्रमशः िदनाक 20.10.1984 व 22.05.1987 को हो जाने के फलस्वरूप धारा- 10(5) के अधीन कब्जा सम्बन्धी सूचना का आदेश एवं नामान्तरण आदेश जारी िकया गया। िववरणदाता द्वारा प्रस्तुत पुनर्स्थापन प्राथर्ना पत्र िदनांक

07.05.1992 बलहीन होने कारण सक्षम प्रािधकारी द्वारा िनयमानुसार िदनाक

13.05.1992 को आदेश पािरत कर िनस्तािरत कर िदया गया। उक्त कायर्वाही के िवरुद्ध मा० जनपद न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद में योिजत सीिलग अपील सख्या-34/1994 श्यामलाल बनाम उ०प्र० राज्य व अन्य में मा० जनपद न्यायाधीश वाराणसी द्वारा िदनांक 25.04.1994 को आदेश पािरत कर सक्षम प्रािधकारी के आदेश िदनांक 13.05.1992 व 25.09.1981 को अपास्त करते हुए प्रकरण को िनयमानुसार गुण-दोष के आधार पर िनस्तािरत करने हेतु सक्षम प्रािधकारी को वापस कर िदया गया। मा० जनपद न्यायालय, वाराणसी के उक्त आदेश िदनांक 25.04.1994 के अनुपालन में पुनः धारा-8(3) की नोिटस िदनांक 02.04.1996 को जारी िकया गया। उक्त नोिटस के क्रम में िववरणदाता द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्रत्यावेदन िदनांक

30.04.1996 के िनस्तारण के क्रम में िदनाक 19.03.1999 तक अलग- अलग ितिथयों पर सुनवाई हुई। यांची द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्रत्यावेदन िदनांक

19.03.2024 के िनस्तारण हेतु सक्षम प्रािधकारी द्वारा िदनांक

19.04.2024 की ितिथ िनयत करते हुए उक्त ितिथ को अपना साक्ष्य व सबूत दािखल करने हेतु प्राथीर् को िनदेर्िशत िकया गया। िनयत ितिथ िदनांक

19.04.2024 को सुनवाई हेतु पत्रावली प्रस्तुत हुई परन्तु प्राथीर् अनुपिस्थत रहा। मा० जनपद न्यायालय वाराणसी के उक्त आदेश िदनाक 25.04.1994 के िवरुद्ध राज्य की ओर से कोई यािचका िकसी न्यायालय में योिजत नहीं िकया गया है।"

9. Hence, from the perusal of the instructions submitted on behalf of the respondents, it is evident that after the remand of the matter in pursuance to the order dated 25.04.1994 passed in the ceiling appeal, the matter remained pending before the Competent Authority and various dates were fixed for hearing

19.03.1999. It is also admitted that the order dated 25.04.1994 4 WRIC No. 29198 of 2025 passed in the ceiling appeal was not challenged by the respondents before any superior court of law.

10. From the instructions submitted on behalf of the respondents, morefully detailed above, it is beyond doubt that the proceedings under Section 8(4) of the Act, 1996 remained pending before the Competent Authority till the date of coming into force of Repeal Act, 1999 and as a consequence thereof proceeding under the Act, 1976 stood abated.

11. The perusal of the instructions also reveal that although notice under Section 10(5) of the Act of 1976 was published but there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the possession of the land in question, morefully detailed above was ever taken by the respondents from the petitioner or her deceased father, late Shyam Lal.

12. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Hari Ram, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 280 while considering the Repeal Act, 1999 held as under: "Let us now examine the effect of Section 3 of Repeal Act 15 of 1999 on sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Act. The Repeal Act, 1999 has expressly repealed Act 33 of 1976. The objects and reasons of the Repeal Act have already been referred to in the earlier part of this judgment. The Repeal Act has, however, retained a saving clause. The question whether a right has been acquired or liability incurred under a statute before it is repealed will in each case depend on the construction of the statute and the facts of the particular case. The mere vesting of the land under sub-section (3) of Section 10 would not confer any right on the State Government to have de facto possession of the vacant land unless there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land before 18-3-1999. The State has to establish that there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land or surrender and delivery of 5 WRIC No. 29198 of 2025 peaceful possession under sub-section (5) of Section 10 or forceful dispossession under sub-section (6) of Section 10. On failure to establish any of those situations, the landowner or holder can claim the benefit of Section 4 of the Repeal Act. The State Government in this appeal could not establish any of those situations and hence the High Court is right in holding that the respondent is entitled to get the benefit of Section 4 of the Repeal Act."

13. Hence, it is beyond doubt that the petitioner is entitled to benefit of Section 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999, and under the provisions thereof all the legal proceedings initiated under the Act, 1976 stood abated, with a few exceptions. The land of the petitioner in question does not fall under the exception as provided under Section 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999 as at the time of repeal of the Act, 1976 the proceedings under Section 8(4) of the Act, 1976 were still pending.

14. For the reasons detailed above, we are of the view that the present writ petition is liable to be allowed.

15. Hence, the present writ petition is allowed and the respondent no. 2 is directed to record the name of the petitioner in respect of her share in Arazi Nos. 75/3 and 83/4 situated in Village- Nathupur, Pargana-Dehat Amanat, Tehsil and District Varanasi and Arazi No. 399/5, situated in Village-Bhulanpur, Pargana- Dehat Amanat, District-Varanasi in the revenue records within a period of two months from the date of certified copy of this order is served upon the respondent no. 2. November 19, 2025 Arif (Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)

HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents.

2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the father of the petitioner, namely Sri Shyam Lal son of Sukhdev @ Sukhkhu was recorded as one of the tenure holders of Arazi No. 83/4M and Arazi No. 75/3 situated in Village-Nathupur, Pargana-Dehat Amanat, Tehsil and District Varanasi and tenure holder of Arazi No. 399/5, situated in Village-Bhulanpur, Pargana-Dehat Amanat, District-Varanasi.

3. The proceedings under Section 8(4) were initiated against Sri Shyam Lal under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' 1976). The Competent Authority vide ex-parte order dated 25.09.1981 had declared

348.13 sq. meter of land as surplus. Subsequently, Sri Shyam Lal had filed an application for recall of ex-parte order dated

25.09.1981. However, the same was also rejected vide order dated 13.05.1992.

4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 13.05.1992, Sri Shyam Lal 2 WRIC No. 29198 of 2025 had filed an appeal which was registered as Ceiling Appeal No. 34 of 1994 (Shyam Lal Vs. State of U.P.). The said appeal was allowed vide the order dated 25.04.1994 and the orders dated

13.05.1992 and 25.09.1981 were set aside and the Competent Authority was directed to proceed afresh in the matter in accordance with law.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that nothing had happened thereafter and the proceedings against Sri Shyam Lal stood abated with the coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. It is also stated that, in the meanwhile, Sri Shyam Lal passed away leaving behind the petitioner, being his daughter as his sole legal heir and successor.

6. The petitioner had filed the present writ petition being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in not recording the land, morefully detailed above, in her name in the revenue records despite the proceedings under the Act, 1976 initiated against the father of the petitioner having been abated with the coming into force of the Repeal Act, 1999 and the petitioner having filed a representation in that regard before the respondents but the same being of no avail.

7. This Court vide order dated 18.09.2025 had granted time to the learned standing counsel to seek instructions in the matter.

8. Learned standing counsel has placed the instructions dated

06.10.2025 submitted by the Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Varanasi, before this Court today and the same are taken on record. The relevant part of the instructions submitted on behalf of the respondents read as under: "अवगत कराना है िक अबर्न सीिलग वाद संख्या-514/66/81-82 राज्य सरकार बनाम श्यामलाल पुत्र सुक्खू, िन. भूलनपुर परगना-देहात अमानत, वाराणसी में अबर्न सीिलग अिधिनयम, 1976 की धारा-8(4) के अन्तगर्त सक्षम प्रािधकारी द्वारा िनयमानुसार िदनांक 25.09.1981 को आदेश पािरत कर ग्राम-नाथूपुर, परगना देहात अमानत िजला वाराणसी िस्थत आराजी 3 WRIC No. 29198 of 2025 संख्या-िम० 83/4 रकबा-70िड० का 1/3 यानी 944.30 वगर्मीटर में से रकबा 348.13 वगर्मीटर भूिम अितिरक्त िरक्त घोिषत िकया गया, िजसके सम्बन्ध में धारा-९ की कायर्वाही के पश्चात धारा-10(1) एवं 10(3) के अन्तगर्त प्रेिषत िकये गये िवज्ञिप्त का प्रकाशन राजकीय गजट में क्रमशः िदनाक 20.10.1984 व 22.05.1987 को हो जाने के फलस्वरूप धारा- 10(5) के अधीन कब्जा सम्बन्धी सूचना का आदेश एवं नामान्तरण आदेश जारी िकया गया। िववरणदाता द्वारा प्रस्तुत पुनर्स्थापन प्राथर्ना पत्र िदनांक

07.05.1992 बलहीन होने कारण सक्षम प्रािधकारी द्वारा िनयमानुसार िदनाक

13.05.1992 को आदेश पािरत कर िनस्तािरत कर िदया गया। उक्त कायर्वाही के िवरुद्ध मा० जनपद न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद में योिजत सीिलग अपील सख्या-34/1994 श्यामलाल बनाम उ०प्र० राज्य व अन्य में मा० जनपद न्यायाधीश वाराणसी द्वारा िदनांक 25.04.1994 को आदेश पािरत कर सक्षम प्रािधकारी के आदेश िदनांक 13.05.1992 व 25.09.1981 को अपास्त करते हुए प्रकरण को िनयमानुसार गुण-दोष के आधार पर िनस्तािरत करने हेतु सक्षम प्रािधकारी को वापस कर िदया गया। मा० जनपद न्यायालय, वाराणसी के उक्त आदेश िदनांक 25.04.1994 के अनुपालन में पुनः धारा-8(3) की नोिटस िदनांक 02.04.1996 को जारी िकया गया। उक्त नोिटस के क्रम में िववरणदाता द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्रत्यावेदन िदनांक

30.04.1996 के िनस्तारण के क्रम में िदनाक 19.03.1999 तक अलग- अलग ितिथयों पर सुनवाई हुई। यांची द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्रत्यावेदन िदनांक

19.03.2024 के िनस्तारण हेतु सक्षम प्रािधकारी द्वारा िदनांक

19.04.2024 की ितिथ िनयत करते हुए उक्त ितिथ को अपना साक्ष्य व सबूत दािखल करने हेतु प्राथीर् को िनदेर्िशत िकया गया। िनयत ितिथ िदनांक

19.04.2024 को सुनवाई हेतु पत्रावली प्रस्तुत हुई परन्तु प्राथीर् अनुपिस्थत रहा। मा० जनपद न्यायालय वाराणसी के उक्त आदेश िदनाक 25.04.1994 के िवरुद्ध राज्य की ओर से कोई यािचका िकसी न्यायालय में योिजत नहीं िकया गया है।"

9. Hence, from the perusal of the instructions submitted on behalf of the respondents, it is evident that after the remand of the matter in pursuance to the order dated 25.04.1994 passed in the ceiling appeal, the matter remained pending before the Competent Authority and various dates were fixed for hearing

19.03.1999. It is also admitted that the order dated 25.04.1994 4 WRIC No. 29198 of 2025 passed in the ceiling appeal was not challenged by the respondents before any superior court of law.

10. From the instructions submitted on behalf of the respondents, morefully detailed above, it is beyond doubt that the proceedings under Section 8(4) of the Act, 1996 remained pending before the Competent Authority till the date of coming into force of Repeal Act, 1999 and as a consequence thereof proceeding under the Act, 1976 stood abated.

11. The perusal of the instructions also reveal that although notice under Section 10(5) of the Act of 1976 was published but there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the possession of the land in question, morefully detailed above was ever taken by the respondents from the petitioner or her deceased father, late Shyam Lal.

12. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Hari Ram, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 280 while considering the Repeal Act, 1999 held as under: "Let us now examine the effect of Section 3 of Repeal Act 15 of 1999 on sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Act. The Repeal Act, 1999 has expressly repealed Act 33 of 1976. The objects and reasons of the Repeal Act have already been referred to in the earlier part of this judgment. The Repeal Act has, however, retained a saving clause. The question whether a right has been acquired or liability incurred under a statute before it is repealed will in each case depend on the construction of the statute and the facts of the particular case. The mere vesting of the land under sub-section (3) of Section 10 would not confer any right on the State Government to have de facto possession of the vacant land unless there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land before 18-3-1999. The State has to establish that there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land or surrender and delivery of 5 WRIC No. 29198 of 2025 peaceful possession under sub-section (5) of Section 10 or forceful dispossession under sub-section (6) of Section 10. On failure to establish any of those situations, the landowner or holder can claim the benefit of Section 4 of the Repeal Act. The State Government in this appeal could not establish any of those situations and hence the High Court is right in holding that the respondent is entitled to get the benefit of Section 4 of the Repeal Act."

13. Hence, it is beyond doubt that the petitioner is entitled to benefit of Section 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999, and under the provisions thereof all the legal proceedings initiated under the Act, 1976 stood abated, with a few exceptions. The land of the petitioner in question does not fall under the exception as provided under Section 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999 as at the time of repeal of the Act, 1976 the proceedings under Section 8(4) of the Act, 1976 were still pending.

14. For the reasons detailed above, we are of the view that the present writ petition is liable to be allowed.

15. Hence, the present writ petition is allowed and the respondent no. 2 is directed to record the name of the petitioner in respect of her share in Arazi Nos. 75/3 and 83/4 situated in Village- Nathupur, Pargana-Dehat Amanat, Tehsil and District Varanasi and Arazi No. 399/5, situated in Village-Bhulanpur, Pargana- Dehat Amanat, District-Varanasi in the revenue records within a period of two months from the date of certified copy of this order is served upon the respondent no. 2. November 19, 2025 Arif (Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)