✦ High Court of India · 23 Sep 2025

Counsel for v. Tej Kulshrestha, Manoj

Case Details High Court of India · 23 Sep 2025

Court

High Court of India

Decided

23 Sep 2025

Bench

SARAL SRIVASTAVA AMITABH KUMAR RAI

Length

1,179 words

Acts & Sections

Repeal Act 1999 The Competent Authority thereafter initiated fresh proceedings under the Act 1976 The effect of the Repeal Act 1999

HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel the State- respondents.

2. The instant writ petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs :- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to record the name of petitioner over khata no.199 and khasra no. 94 situated in village Jagan Pur Mustkil, Tehsil and District Agra after deleting the name of state government. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in peaceful possession of the petitioner over khata no.199 and khasra situated in village Jagan Pur Mustkil, Tehsil and District Agra under the provision of "The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999"."

3. The brief facts of the case are that a notice under Section 8(3) 2 WRIC No. 37759 of 2013 the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1976') was issued on

23.09.1978 and served upon the petitioner on 14.10.1978 in respect of the petitioner's land bearing Khata No. 199 and Khasra No. 94, situated in Village Jagan Pur Mustkil, Tehsil and District Agra. The petitioner was recorded as the original tenure-holder of the said land as a Bhumidhar with transferable rights in the revenue records of Fasli 1399. The petitioner did not file any objection in response to the notice issued under Section 8(3) of the Act, 1976 and hence the proceedings under Section 8(4) of the Act, 1976 was initiated and by the order dated 23.11.1978, the area of land 23082.6156 square meter was declared as surplus. Subsequently notification under Section 10 (1) of the Act, 1976 was issued on 12.6.1979 which was published on 26.1.1980. Another notification under Section 10 (3) of the Act, 1976 was issued on 7.12.1983 which was published on 8.6.1985 and the surplus land stood vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances.

4. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that a declaratory notice under Section 10(5) of the Act, 1976 was issued on

17.09.1985 which was served upon the original tenure-holder, i.e., the petitioner and the possession was taken up on 15.1.1986. It has been also stated that the name of the State Government was also recorded in the revenue records as a consequence of the order dated 17.9.1985 passed under Section 10(5) of the Act,

5. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the ceiling proceedings, filed Misc. Appeal No. 54 of 1994 under Section 33 of the Act, 1976, which was allowed vide order dated 17.04.1997. By the said order, the earlier order dated 23.11.1978 passed under Section 8(4) of the Act, 1976 whereby the land in question was declared as excess vacant land was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Competent Authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law, after effecting proper service of notice and draft statement as required under Rule 5(2) read with Section 8(3) 3 WRIC No. 37759 of 2013 of the Act, 1976. Thus, the undisputed fact emerges, that after passing of the order dated 17.4.1997 in appeal, the proceedings drawn earlier stood nullified by which the area of land

23082.6156 square meter was declared surplus.

6. The Competent Authority thereafter initiated fresh proceedings under the Act, 1976 and order under Section 8(4) of the Act, 1976 in Case No. 3419/6920/76-77 was passed again declaring land area 23082.6156 square meter as surplus land vide order passed on 31.3.1998. It seems, that thereafter the petitioner again filed Appeal No. 199 of 1997 challenging the order dated 31.3.1998 passed by the Competent Authority under Section 8(4) of the Act,

1976. During the pendency of the appeal, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Ordinance, 1999 came into effect which was adopted by the State Legislature of Uttar Pradesh under Article 252 (2) of the Constitution of India on 18.3.1999. The ordinance was replaced by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Repeal Act, 1999) by which the Act, 1976 was repealed. The effect of the Repeal Act, 1999 was that all the legal proceedings relating to any order made or purported to be made under the Act, 1976 stood abated by virtue of Section 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999. Thus the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated

31.3.1998 passed by the Competent Authority under Section 8(4) of the Act, 1976 stood abated and the order to that extent was also passed by the Appellate Court on 2.7.1999 in Appeal No.199 of

7. In nutshell, the sequence of events narrated above leads to conclusion that the ceiling proceedings under the Act, 1976 with respect to the land in question could only proceed up to the stage of Section 8(4) of the Act, 1976, i.e. order dated 31.3.1998 passed by the Competent Authority under Section 8(4) of the Act, 1976 against which the Appeal No. 199 of 1997 was filed and which stood abated. Thus, the land of the petitioner which was subject to ceiling proceedings under the Act, 1976 remained with the petitioner as no further proceedings under the Act, 1976 could 4 WRIC No. 37759 of 2013 take place after the stage of Section 8(4) of the Act, 1976 due to coming into force of the Repeal Act, 1999. No acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling limit as contemplated under Section 10 of the Act, 1976 could take place. The factum of possession has also been disputed by the petitioners, as it has been specifically stated in Paragraph No.4 of the writ petition that petitioner is in physical possession over the land in question which fact has not been denied in reply in Paragraph No.4 of the counter affidavit.

8. Be that may be, the question of factum of possession is not relevant under the facts of the present case as no proceeding under Section 10 of the Act, 1976 could take place with respect to the land in question due to coming into force of Repeal Act,

1999. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued directing to respondent nos. 2 and 4, i.e. Collector Agra, Tehsildar, Tehsil Sadar, Agra to record the name of the petitioner in the revenue records over Khata No. 199 and Khasra No. 94, situated in Village Jagan Pur Mustkil, Tehsil and District Agra after deleting the name of the State Government and petitioner should be allowed to continue with the possession without any interference by the State authorities. There shall be no order as to costs. September 23, 2025 Gaurav (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) GAURAV PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel the State- respondents.

4. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that a declaratory notice under Section 10(5) of the Act, 1976 was issued on

23082.6156 square meter was declared surplus.

31.3.1998 passed by the Competent Authority under Section 8(4) of the Act, 1976 stood abated and the order to that extent was also passed by the Appellate Court on 2.7.1999 in Appeal No.199 of

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments

More cases under Repeal Act 1999