Allahabad High Court
Ram Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Others on 24 May, 2023
Bench: Salil Kumar Rai, Arun Kumar Deshwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:116151-DB
Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6638 of 2009
Petitioner :- Ram Kumar
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Atul Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.
Order on C.M. Delay Condonation Application No. 06 of 2018, C.M. Review / Recall Application No. 07 of 2018 and C.M. Stay Application No. 08 of 2018
The present review / recall application has been filed by the Prayagraj Development Authority (previously known as Allahabad Development Authority) on the ground that the land had been transferred to the Development Authority which was not impleaded as a respondent in the petition and, therefore, the judgment and order dated 1.10.2015 allowing the writ petition has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and requires to be recalled / reviewed.
We have considered the records.
It is true that the Prayagraj Development Authority was not impleaded as a party respondent in the petition and the order dated 1.10.2015 does not indicate that the Development Authority was otherwise heard as intervenor in the petition. However, a perusal of the order dated 1.10.2015 passed by this Court shows that the petition has been allowed and the respondents - State Authorities were directed not to interfere in the actual physical possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute and also directed to restore the entry of the name of the petitioner in the revenue records on the ground that there was no possession memo or any other document including Form ULC - III which indicated any date of taking over any possession from the petitioner even though notice under Section 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 dated 28.11.1987 was on the record. The Court held that in absence of memo of possession or any other documentary evidence, a presumption cannot be drawn that by mere vesting, possession had been transferred in favour of the State and only presumption that can be drawn was that though the land was declared surplus but actual physical possession of the said land was never taken over by the State. The fact regarding taking over actual physical possession from the tenure holder can be contested or brought to the notice of the Court only by the State Authorities and any paper transaction indicating transfer of the surplus land to the Development Authority has no legal effect and does not affect the merits of the judgment and order dated 1.10.2015.
In view of the aforesaid, we do not find it to be a case for reviewing the judgment and order dated 1.10.2015 only on the ground that the the Development Authority was not impleaded as a respondent in the petition.
The review / recall application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.5.2023
Satyam
