Bhagawati Prasad vs State Of U.P. Thru' Its Department ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 1769 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 3
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29928 of 2010
 

 
Petitioner :- Bhagawati Prasad
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru' Its Department Of Urban Land Cieling
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Atul Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Tiwari,S.I.Siddiqui
 

 
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Hon'ble Amar Singh Chauhan, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

The case of the petitioner is that though plots in dispute were declared surplus in the  hands of recorded tenure holder, Sant Lal,  his deceased father,  in  a proceedings case no. K-3681/1976, State Vs. Sant Lal by means of an exparte order dated 16.03.1984 under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (in short hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), but actual physical possession has not been taken and, thus, he would be entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (in short hereinafter referred to as 'Repeal Act').

Specific case set up by the petitioner in the writ petition is that actual physical possession had not been taken by the State as such he was entitled for the benefit of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (in short hereinafter referred to as 'Repeal Act').

A counter affidavit has been filed by the State wherein it has been stated in paragraph  3(i) as under :

"3(i).That in pursuance of notice under Section 6 (1) of the Act, no objection was filed hence an order under Section 8 (4) of the Act was passed on 16.03.1984 declaring an area of 16118.40 sq. meter as surplus. Thereafter a final statement under section 9 of the Act was issued on 30.12.1985. Publication under Section 10 (1) and 10 (3) of the Act was made and notice under Section 10 (5) of the Act was issued on 27.01.1996."

It has further been stated that after notice under Section 10 (5) of the Act, the land has been transferred in favour of Allahabad Development Authority in compliance of some Government Order.

A perusal of the aforesaid averments clearly go to show that mere allegations have been made that surplus land has vested in the State Government much prior to the implementation of the Repeal Act, 1999. There are no averments or  any material in the counter affidavit to indicate as to when and how the possession was taken in pursuance of the order declaring the land as surplus. Possession memo has  not been filed. Copy of the notice under Section 10 (50) of the Act does not indicate that it was ever served on the petitioner or even his predecessor. There is no endorsement on the said notice that any possession was taken or the tenure holder gave up possession voluntarily.

In the absence of any material in the counter affidavit to demonstrate that State had taken physical possession over the land declared surplus, simple allegation made that after issuance of notification under Section 10 (3) of the Act, 1976, the land vested in the State and issuance of notice under Section 10 (5) of the Act will not be sufficient to hold that possession of the land has been taken over by the State.

The issue was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Chandra Pandey Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2010 (82) ALR 136, wherein it was held that mere symbolic possession does not amount to taking over actual physical possession. It was further held that unless actual physical possession has been taken by the State, the party would be entitled to the benefit of the Repeal Act, 1999.

The same view has been taken by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Hari Ram [JT 2013 (4) SC 275: 2013 (4) SCC 280]. The question for consideration before the Apex Court in the said case was whether deemed vesting of surplus land under section 10(3) of the Act would amount taking over de facto possession depriving the landholders to the benefit of the saving clause under sub-section (3) of the Repeal Act. This issue was answered by the Apex Court in para 39 of the said judgment, which reads as under:-

"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. State has to establish that there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land or surrender and delivery of 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 land owner or holder can claim the benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal Act."

The same issue has been reaffirmed by the Apex Court in the case of Gajanan Kamlya Patil Vs. Addl. Collector & Comp. Auth. & Ors. reported in JT 2014 (3) SC 211.

From the pleadings, we find that impleadment application has been made by the Allahabad Development Authority on the allegations that since the land declared surplus has been given to Allahabad Development Authority under the direction of the State Government, therefore, it is necessary and property party. However no body appeared on behalf of the Allahabad Development Authority press the application though the case has been taken up in the revised list.

We have perused the affidavit filed in support of impleadment application of the Tehsildar, Allahabad Development Authority. It is four paragraphs affidavit without even making a reference as to when and in what manner land was transferred by the State in favour of the Allahabad Development Authority. Mere allegation that the land has been given to Allahabad Development Authority under the direction of the State Government would not be sufficient to hold that land stands transferred and vested in Allahabad Development Authority.

Similarly, another application for impleadment has been made on behalf of M/s Pancham Realcon Private Limited claiming themselves to be developers which was allowed on 19.10.2010. Again no one has appeared on behalf of the said party nor any counter affidavit has been filed though the matter has remained pending for last five years.

We have perused the affidavit filed in support of impleadment application. It only refers to a letter of the District Magistrate, Allahabad dated 07.09.2009 in reference to  application made by it for allotment of an area of 69.308 Hectare of land in Karchhana Tehsil, Allahabad for establishing a High Tech township to deposit a sum of Rs.15,72,45,471.00. It also refers  to the identical letter written by the Vice Chairman of the Development Authority requiring the said Company to deposit a sum of  Rs.15,72,45,471.00. Apart from above, there is no material on record even remotely to indicate that the land  which is subject matter of dispute in the present writ petition was ever allotted to them muchless handed over possession.

Once the State has failed to establish that it took over actual physical possession of the land declared surplus, the State will have no right over the said land nor it can transfer in favour of any person.

In the light of the facts noted above, it is absolutely clear that the State has failed to establish that it took over actual physical possession of the land declared surplus and even the Allahabad Development Authority and  M/s Pancham Realcon Private Limited  have also failed to bring on record any documents  to establish that the State took over possession of the surplus land and the same was subsequently transferred or allotted to them.

In such view of the matter, the petitioner is, thus, entitled to benefit of  Repeal Act and in the facts and circumstances, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and stands allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued commanding the respondents not to interfere in the actual physical possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute and they are further directed to restore the entry of the name of the tenure holders in the revenue records. There shall be no order as to costs.

Order Date :- 12.8.2015

Dcs