Yogendra Kumar and others v. State of UP) in the court of Civil Judge

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

1. Heard Sri Raghav Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The controversy involved in the present writ petition is that the father of the petitioners Late Sri Ram Chandra Sharma was the recorded tenure holder over the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 133, 140, 142, 143, 338, 340, 599, 600 and 781 situated in Village- Shobhapur, Tehsil and District- Meerut (hereinafter referred to as the 'land in question').

3. After coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1976') the father of the petitioners filed statement before the competent authority-respondent no.2 on 6.10.1976 under Section 6(1) of the Act, 1976. In the meanwhile the father of the petitioners, Shri Ramesh Chandra, passed away in the year 1983, and the names of the petitioners were duly mutated in the revenue records.

4. Thereafter, the competent authority issued notice under Section 8(3) of the Act, 1976, declaring a major portion of the land in question as surplus. The petitioners had filed their objections under Section 8(4) of the Act, 1976, stating that the entire land was being used for agricultural purposes. The proceedings under Section 8(4) of the Act, 1976, were ultimately decided on 29.8.1991.

5. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 29.8.1991, had 2 WRIC No. 40424 of 2025 preferred an appeal, being Appeal No. 16 of 1996, before the appellate authority, and the appeal stood abated on 25.11.1999, with the coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.

6. However, the respondents had forcibly tried to take possession of the land in question of the petitioners, and the petitioners were constrained to file Original Suit No. 663 of 2004 (Yogendra Kumar and others vs. State of UP) in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Meerut, for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. The suit filed by the petitioners was ultimately decreed vide the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2008, restraining the respondents from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in question.

7. The respondents, against the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2008, had filed Civil Appeal No. 185 of 2008 and the same was dismissed vide the judgment and decree dated 12.3.2013. The second appeal filed by the respondents against the judgment and decree dated 12.3.2013, before this Court, registered as Second Appeal No. 1196 of 2013, was also dismissed on merits on 12.4.2022.

8. It is further submitted that even after the adjudication of the subject matter in controversy, the names of the petitioners were not mutated in the revenue records, even though the petitioners had preferred an application in that regard before the respondent no.2 but the same was of no avail.

9. The petitioners being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents had filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.36734 of 2024 (Devendra Sharma & others Vs. State of U.P. & others) and the said writ petition was disposed off vide the judgment and order dated 13.02.2025 with the direction to the petitioners to file an appropriate application within a period of ten days with a further direction that in case such an application was filed, the same shall be decided expeditiously and preferably within a period of four months thereafter.

10. The application so filed by the petitioner in pursuance to the directions of this Court was decided by the respondent no.2 vide order 3 WRIC No. 40424 of 2025 dated 28.06.2025 wherein essentially it was held that the review petition was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court arising out of judgment and order dated 02.08.2024 passed in SLP No.- 17183/2024 (State of U.P. and others Vs. Yogendra Kumar and others) and in view of the same no action could have been initiated on the representation so made by the petitioners.

11. It has been submitted by the petitioners that it is only after the passing of the order dated 28.08.2025, the petitioners came to know about the Special Leave Petition No.-17183/2024 and also the fact that the same had been dismissed vide the judgment and order dated 02.08.2024. Besides it is only then, that the petitioners also came to know about the review petition filed against the judgment and order dated 02.08.2024.

12. It has been submitted by the petitioners that the review petition so filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also been dismissed on

19.08.2025 both on grounds of delay as well as merits. The judgment and order dated 19.08.2025 is annexed on page no. 199 of the writ petition.

13. In the above background, the petitioners had once again approached the competent authority-respondent no.2 vide representation dated

26.08.2025 stating that as the review petition pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court had been dismissed on 19.08.2025. Hence, the name of the writ petitioners be mutated in the revenue records.

14. The petitioners have approached this Court being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent no.2. It has been submitted by the petitioners that the proceedings initiated against the petitioners under the Act, 1976 stood abated with the coming into force of the Repeal Act,

1999. It is also submitted that the question regarding title of the petitioners over the land in question has already been adjudicated by the competent civil court and other superior courts. Further the dispute has been brought to its legitimate end with the dismissal of the review petition on 19.08.2025 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, the respondents are entitled to get their names mutated in the revenue records in respect of the land in question.

15. The contention of the petitioners is that the respondent no.2 had 4 WRIC No. 40424 of 2025 refused to record the names of the petitioners in the revenue records, solely on the ground that the review petition was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, even the said ground no longer survives with the dismissal of the review petition on 19.09.2005.

16. Learned Standing Counsel submits that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending and appropriate direction may be issued to the respondent no.2 to consider the grievance of the petitioners.

17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without adverting to the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed off permitting the petitioners to file a fresh representation along with certified copy of this order raising all their grievances before the respondent no.2- Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling/A.D.M. (Administration), Meerut within a period of one month from today. In case, any such representation is filed by the petitioners, the respondent no.2 shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law within a period of one month thereafter from the date he receives representation of the petitioners. November 19, 2025 Virendra (Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)

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

1. Heard Sri Raghav Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The controversy involved in the present writ petition is that the father of the petitioners Late Sri Ram Chandra Sharma was the recorded tenure holder over the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 133, 140, 142, 143, 338, 340, 599, 600 and 781 situated in Village- Shobhapur, Tehsil and District- Meerut (hereinafter referred to as the 'land in question').

3. After coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1976') the father of the petitioners filed statement before the competent authority-respondent no.2 on 6.10.1976 under Section 6(1) of the Act, 1976. In the meanwhile the father of the petitioners, Shri Ramesh Chandra, passed away in the year 1983, and the names of the petitioners were duly mutated in the revenue records.

4. Thereafter, the competent authority issued notice under Section 8(3) of the Act, 1976, declaring a major portion of the land in question as surplus. The petitioners had filed their objections under Section 8(4) of the Act, 1976, stating that the entire land was being used for agricultural purposes. The proceedings under Section 8(4) of the Act, 1976, were ultimately decided on 29.8.1991.

5. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 29.8.1991, had 2 WRIC No. 40424 of 2025 preferred an appeal, being Appeal No. 16 of 1996, before the appellate authority, and the appeal stood abated on 25.11.1999, with the coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.

6. However, the respondents had forcibly tried to take possession of the land in question of the petitioners, and the petitioners were constrained to file Original Suit No. 663 of 2004 (Yogendra Kumar and others vs. State of UP) in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Meerut, for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. The suit filed by the petitioners was ultimately decreed vide the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2008, restraining the respondents from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in question.

7. The respondents, against the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2008, had filed Civil Appeal No. 185 of 2008 and the same was dismissed vide the judgment and decree dated 12.3.2013. The second appeal filed by the respondents against the judgment and decree dated 12.3.2013, before this Court, registered as Second Appeal No. 1196 of 2013, was also dismissed on merits on 12.4.2022.

8. It is further submitted that even after the adjudication of the subject matter in controversy, the names of the petitioners were not mutated in the revenue records, even though the petitioners had preferred an application in that regard before the respondent no.2 but the same was of no avail.

9. The petitioners being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents had filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.36734 of 2024 (Devendra Sharma & others Vs. State of U.P. & others) and the said writ petition was disposed off vide the judgment and order dated 13.02.2025 with the direction to the petitioners to file an appropriate application within a period of ten days with a further direction that in case such an application was filed, the same shall be decided expeditiously and preferably within a period of four months thereafter.

10. The application so filed by the petitioner in pursuance to the directions of this Court was decided by the respondent no.2 vide order 3 WRIC No. 40424 of 2025 dated 28.06.2025 wherein essentially it was held that the review petition was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court arising out of judgment and order dated 02.08.2024 passed in SLP No.- 17183/2024 (State of U.P. and others Vs. Yogendra Kumar and others) and in view of the same no action could have been initiated on the representation so made by the petitioners.

11. It has been submitted by the petitioners that it is only after the passing of the order dated 28.08.2025, the petitioners came to know about the Special Leave Petition No.-17183/2024 and also the fact that the same had been dismissed vide the judgment and order dated 02.08.2024. Besides it is only then, that the petitioners also came to know about the review petition filed against the judgment and order dated 02.08.2024.

12. It has been submitted by the petitioners that the review petition so filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also been dismissed on

19.08.2025 both on grounds of delay as well as merits. The judgment and order dated 19.08.2025 is annexed on page no. 199 of the writ petition.

13. In the above background, the petitioners had once again approached the competent authority-respondent no.2 vide representation dated

26.08.2025 stating that as the review petition pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court had been dismissed on 19.08.2025. Hence, the name of the writ petitioners be mutated in the revenue records.

14. The petitioners have approached this Court being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent no.2. It has been submitted by the petitioners that the proceedings initiated against the petitioners under the Act, 1976 stood abated with the coming into force of the Repeal Act,

1999. It is also submitted that the question regarding title of the petitioners over the land in question has already been adjudicated by the competent civil court and other superior courts. Further the dispute has been brought to its legitimate end with the dismissal of the review petition on 19.08.2025 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, the respondents are entitled to get their names mutated in the revenue records in respect of the land in question.

15. The contention of the petitioners is that the respondent no.2 had 4 WRIC No. 40424 of 2025 refused to record the names of the petitioners in the revenue records, solely on the ground that the review petition was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, even the said ground no longer survives with the dismissal of the review petition on 19.09.2005.

16. Learned Standing Counsel submits that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending and appropriate direction may be issued to the respondent no.2 to consider the grievance of the petitioners.

17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without adverting to the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed off permitting the petitioners to file a fresh representation along with certified copy of this order raising all their grievances before the respondent no.2- Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling/A.D.M. (Administration), Meerut within a period of one month from today. In case, any such representation is filed by the petitioners, the respondent no.2 shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law within a period of one month thereafter from the date he receives representation of the petitioners. November 19, 2025 Virendra (Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)