Allahabad High Court
Smt. Seeta Devi And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 20 September, 2019
Bench: Bala Krishna Narayana, Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A.F.R. Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11960 of 2016 Petitioner :- Smt. Seeta Devi And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Per Hon'ble Prakash Padia J.
1. Heard Sri Manoj Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of all the respondents.
2. The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition with the following prayers:-
"i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 23.11.2015 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Sadar, District Allahabad/respondent no. 4 (Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition)
ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to correct the revenue record by deleting "State Land" in the Revenue Record against the name of the petitioners in respect of the land in dispute.
iii) to issue any other and further order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
iv) to award cost of the petition to the petitioner."
3. Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the dispute relates to Khasra No. 119 area 297.26 square meter, 102 area 1561.76 square meter, 103 area 4561.76 square meter, 121 area 2508.97 square meter, 101 area 3531.73 square meter, 108 area 684.26 square meter, 109 area 1026.40 square meter, total area 17172.14 square meters situated in village and Pargana Meerapur, District Allahabad. The proceedings under the provisions of Urban Land (ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 (hereinafter called as Act, 1976) were initiated against the petitioners in which an area of 17172.14 square meters of land in dispute was declared surplus on the basis of ex-parte survey report dated 10.10.1995. Against the aforesaid report an appeal being appeal no. 332 of 1995 was preferred by the predecessors of the petitioners namely Sri Kanhee Lal as provided under section 33 of the Act of 1976 before the District Judge, Allahabad. The District Judge, Allahabad abated entire proceedings relating to the land in dispute vide order dated 17.12.2000 order passed in the aforesaid appeal which is reproduced below:-
^^yksd vnkyr esa iqdkj yxok;h x;hA mHk; i{kksa ds vf/koDrkx.k mifLFkr gSA vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls vcsVesUV ds lEcU/k esa izLrqr izkFkZuk i= ,oa layXu 'kiFk i= dh lquokbZ dh x;hA foi{kh@izfrmRrjnkrk dh vksj ls dksbZ vkifRr ;k izfr'kiFk i= izLrqr ugha fd;k x;kA Hkkjr ljdkj vjcu lhfyax 1976 dks vcZu yS.M ¼lhfyax ,.M jsxqys'ku½ fjihy ,DV 1999 dh /kkjk 4 ds vUrxZr uxj Hkwfe lhekjksi.k ewy vf/kfu;e dks lekIr dj fn;k gS vkSj ftu oknksa ls lEcfU/kr Hkwfe dk eqvkotk ugha fn;k x;k gS rFkk dCtk o n[ky ugha fy;k x;k og lHkh dk;Zokgh Loa; esa lekIr gks x;h vkSj lHkh tehusa uxj Hkwfe lhekjksi.k ls eqDr gks x;hA rn~uqlkj ;g lEiw.kZ dk;Zokgh vcsV fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vkns'k izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA ;g vihy vcsV gksus ds dkj.k bldh leLr dk;Zokgh lekIr dh tkrh gSA**
4. The Saksham Adhikari, Nagar Nigam, Seema Ropan, Allahabad preferred a review petition against the order dated 17.12.2000, the same numbered as Misc. Case No. 930 of 2002 before the District Judge, Allahabad. During the pendency of the aforesaid review petition the predecessors of the petitioners namely Kanhee Lal Yadav died on 10.04.2003. District Judge, Allahabad rejected the aforesaid review petition vide his order dated 08.08.2008. It is further stated in paragraph no. 13 of the writ petition that the possession of the land in dispute was earlier with the predecessors of the petitioners and after their death the same is with the petitioners and the possession of the land in dispute was never taken from the petitioners.
5. It is further stated that due to the fact that the petitioners are in actual possession of the land in dispute the entire proceedings stood abated and the revenue records were liable to be corrected accordingly. It is further stated that against the aforesaid order dated 08.08.2008, no further proceedings were initiated by the respondents and as such in view of the provisions contained under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, revenue entry made in the Revenue Record in favour of the state is liable to be expunged. After the aforesaid order dated 08.08.2008 was passed various representations were made by the petitioners before the respondent nos. 2 to 4 to correct the entry in the Revenue Record and delete the word "State Land" from the revenue records in respect of the land in dispute. Since no orders were passed on the aforesaid representations, a writ petition was preferred by the petitioners before this Court being Writ Petition No. 68554 of 2011 (Smt. Seeta Devi and others vs. State of U.P. and others). On the said writ petition, following order was passed on 06.02.2015:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.
During course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners states that he is only pressing his prayer that a direction be issued to respondent no. 3 to decide the representation dated 19.09.2011 filed for the purpose of mutation of their names in the revenue record. He further states that by order dated 17.12.2000 the District Judge, Allahabad in Ceiling Appeal No. 332 of 1995 allowed his application praying for abatement of appeal to the effect that the appeal abates and all the proceedings with regard to the Urban Ceiling Act shall come to an end. Learned counsel for the petitioners further states that even review application no. 930 of 2001 filed by the State for reviewing the order dated 17.12.2000 was also dismissed by the learned District Judge on 8.8.2008 and the said order has become final as the same was not further challenged by the State/competent authority.
In the circumstances, without entering into the merits of the case, we dispose of this petition directing respondent no. 3 to decide the representation dated 19.09.2011 which is said to be still pending before him, by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order along with copy of order dated 17.12.2000 before the respondent no. 3."
6. The aforesaid order was duly served, in the office of opposite party. Since no action was taken in terms of the aforesaid judgment dated 06.02.2015 a contempt petition was preferred by the petitioners being Civil Misc. Contempt Application No. 4178 of 2015. The said contempt petition was finally disposed of by this Court vide its order dated 17.07.2015. By the aforesaid order the opposite party was granted three months further time to comply with the judgment and order dated 06.02.2015 passed in writ C No. 68554 of 2011 (Smt. Seeta Devi) Supra.
7. Pursuant to the aforesaid orders now a decision has been taken by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Sadar District Allahabad/respondent no. 4 on 23.11.2015. By the aforesaid decision the claim set up by the petitioners was finally decided and rejected by the respondent no. 4. It is stated in the aforesaid order that letters were already written by the District Magistrate, Allahabad to the State Government on 28.05.2015 and 17.11.2014 asking for the comments from the office of District Magistrate. Challenging the aforesaid order the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition.
8. It is argued by Sri Manoj Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners that the order dated 23.11.2015 passed by the respondent no. 4 is an absolutely illegal order liable to be set aside by this Court. It is further argued that it has already been decided by the Apex Court in the case of PT. Madan Swaroop Shrotiya Public Charitable Trust vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in (2000) 6 SCC 325 that if possession has not been taken of the land declared as surplus, the entire proceedings would be abated. It is further argued that the order dated 08.08.2008 passed by the District Judge, Allahabad in the appeal preferred by the respondents has became final and as such petitioners became entitled for their names being recorded in the revenue records in place of "State Land". It is further argued that in large number of similar cases guidelines were duly issued by the Supreme Court from time to time for making necessary corrections in the revenue records by deleting the name of the State Government and substituting the name of original tenure holders.
9. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent nos. 2 and 4. In the counter affidavit it is stated that land to the extent of 17172.14 square meters of Beni Prasad son of Aloopi at residence of 126 Meerapur Allahabad was declared surplus under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 on the basis of survey report submitted under section 8(4) of the Act of 1976 vide order dated 15.03.1982 and thereafter the final statement was issued as provided under section 9 of the Act of 1976. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that land holder filed an appeal being appeal no. 384 of 1982 before the District Judge, which was allowed by the order dated 24.05.1983 and the order dated 15.03.1982 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Prescribed Authority. Thereafter the Prescribed Authority again passed an order dated 17.09.1985 declaring the land in dispute as surplus. Against the aforesaid order the tenure holder Benni Prasad filed a Review Petition before the Prescribed Authority which was dismissed on 21.03.1988. Against the order dated 21.03.1988 passed by the Prescribed Authority the land holder namely Benni Prasad filed an appeal being Appeal No. 253 of 1988 and on the said appeal an order dated 10.04.1989 was passed by the Prescribed Authority by which the matter was again remanded before the Prescribed Authority. At this point of time Prescribed Authority passed an order dated 10.10.1995 and rejected the objections. After the order dated 10.10.1995 was passed a Gazette notification was published on 19.08.1997 and 03.01.1998 as provided under section 10(1) and Section 10(3) of the Act of 1976. An order was passed for possession on 13.02.1998 as provided under section 10(5) of the Act of 1976 and the name of the State Government was recorded in the Revenue Records in place of the land holders.
10. Against the order dated 10.10.1995 an appeal was preferred by the land holders before the District Judge which was numbered as Ceiling Appeal No. 332 of 1995. District Judge in Lok Adalat has abated the appeal filed by the land holders vide judgment and order dated 17.12.2000. A Review Petition was preferred by the State Government before the District Judge, Allahabad for reviewing the order dated 17.12.2000 passed in Ceiling Appeal No. 332 of 1995 which was rejected by the District Judge vide his judgment and order dated 08.08.2008. After the aforesaid judgment dated 08.08.2008 was passed an application was submitted by the Prescribed Authority to the Urban Ceiling before State Government seeking permission from State Government for filing writ petition before this Court challenging the order dated 08.08.2008. It is argued that the permission is still awaited and as such writ petition could not be filed till date.
11. In the circumstances, it is argued by the learned Standing Counsel that no relief can be granted to the petitioners as prayed for by them in the present writ petition.
12. In the Rejoinder affidavit it is stated by the petitioners that once the Review Petition filed by the respondents were rejected by the District Judge and since the aforesaid order has became final, the order passed by the respondent no. 4 dated 23.11.2015 is liable to be set aside and a mandamus is liable to be issued directing the State Government to correct the Revenue Records accordingly. It is further argued that the petitioners are in actual physical possession upon the land in question and as such in view of the Repealing Act, 1999 the entire proceedings are deemed to be abated.
13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
14. From perusal of the record, it is clear that an order dated 08.08.2008 was passed by the District Judge, Allahabad on the Review Petition filed by the State authorities. The said Review Petition was rejected by the District Judge, Allahabad. Against the aforesaid order dated 08.08.2008 no proceedings whatsoever has been initiated by the respondents till date. Complete procedure has been prescribed under section 10(5) and Section 10(6) of the Act of 1976.
15. The case of the petitioners is that though the land of the petitioners was declared as surplus under the provisions of the Act of 1976, but actual physical possession of the same was never taken and thus, the petitioners became entitled to the benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal act, 1999.
16. Specific case of the petitioners is that actual physical possession has not been taken and mere symbolic possession would not be sufficient as the petitioners continue in possession of the plot in question.
17. 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.
18. 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 of 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."
19. The same issue was considered by the Apex Court in the case of Gajanan Kamlya Patil vs. Addl. Collector & Comp. Auth. & Ors. reported in JT 2014 (3) SC 211.
20. There is no material in the counter affidavit to demonstrate that the State has taken peaceful possession, nor there is any material to demonstrate that the possession was handed over by the petitioners voluntarily or was taken over by use of force. There is not even a whisper in respect of any notice having been issued under section 10(6) of the Act. The facts clearly indicates that only dejure possession has been taken by the State, not de facto possession, before coming into force of the Repeal Act.
21. From perusal of the record, it is further clear that the procedure for taking over the possession has not been adopted by the State Government at any point of time. Moreover nothing has been stated in the entire counter affidavit whether any proceedings were taken by the State Government as provided under the Act of 1976. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13218 of 2008, Yasin vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2014 (4) ADJ page 305 connected with two other writ petitions. It was pointed out that directions were issued by the State Government in the year 1983 namely Uttar Pradesh Urban Land and Ceiling (Taking Of Possession, Payment Of Amount and Allied Matters) Directions, 1983. It has already been held in the aforesaid case that the register should be maintained by the State Government maintaining therein the procedure adopted by them for taking over the possession for surplus land.
22. The twin questions which arise for our consideration in this writ petition, inter-alia, are that whether on the date of the coming into force of the Repeal Act, 1999, actual physical possession of the disputed land was with the petitioner or the same stood delivered to the State and; whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the Repeal Act?
23. In order to examine the aforesaid questions, it would be useful to reproduce the provisions of The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 which are relevant for our purpose :-
6. Persons holding vacant land in excess of ceiling limit to file statement-
(1) Every person holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit at the commencement of this Act shall, within such period as may be prescribed, file a statement before the competent authority having Jurisdiction specifying the location, extent, value and such other particulars as may be prescribed of all vacant land and of any other land on which there is a building, whether or not with a dwelling unit therein, held by him (including the nature of his right, title or interest therein) and also specifying the vacant land within the ceiling limit which he desires to retain: Provided that in relation to any State to which this Act applies in the first instance, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect as if for the words "Every person holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit and the commencement of this Act", the words, figures and letters "Every person who held vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit on or after the 17th day of February, 1975 and before the commencement of this Act and every person holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit at such commencement" had been substituted. Explanation.--In this section, "commencement of this Act" means,--
(i) the date on which this Act comes into force in any State;
(ii) where any land, not being vacant land, situated in a State in which this Act is in force has become vacant land by any reason whatsoever, the date on which such land becomes vacant land;
(iii) where any notification has been issued under clause (n) of section 2 in respect of any area in a State in which this Act is in force, the date of publication of such notification.
(2) If the competent authority is of opinion that--
(a) in any State to which this Act applies in the first instance, any person held on or after the 17th day of February, 1975 and before the commencement of this Act or holds at such commencement; or
(b) in any State which adopts this Act under clause (1) of article 252 of the Constitution, any person holds at the commencement of this Act, vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit, then, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), it may serve a notice upon such person requiring him to file, within such period as may be specified in the notice, the statement referred to in sub-section (1).
(3) The competent authority may, if it is satisfied that it is necessary so to do, extend the date for filing the statement under this section by such further period or periods as it may think fit; so, however, that the period or the aggregate of the periods of such extension shall not exceed three months.
(4) The statement under this section shall be filed,--
(a) in the case of an individual, by the individual himself; where the individual is absent from India, by the individual concerned or by some person duly authorised by him in this behalf; and where the individual is mentally incapacitated from attending to his affairs, by his guardian or any other person competent to act on his behalf;
(b) in the case of a family, by the husband or wife and where the husband or wife is absent from India or is mentally incapacitated from attending to his or her affairs, by the husband or wife who is not so absent or mentally incapacitated and where both the husband and the wife are absent from India or are mentally incapacitated from attending to their affairs, by any other person competent to act on behalf on the husband or wife or both;
(c) in the case of a company, by the principal officer thereof;
(d) in the case of a firm, by any partner thereof;
(e) in the case of any other association, by any member of the association or the principal officer thereof; and
(f) in the case of any other person, by that person or by a person competent to act on his behalf. Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section, "principal officer"--
(i) in relation to a company, means the secretary, manager or managing- director of the company;
(ii) in relation to any association, means the secretary, treasurer, manager or agent of the association, and includes any person connected with the management of the affairs of the company or the association, as the case may be, upon whom the competent authority has served a notice of his intention of treating his as the principal officer thereof.
7. Filing of statement in cases where vacant land held by a person is situated within the jurisdiction of two or more competent authorities.--
(1) Where a person holds vacant land situated within the jurisdiction of two or more competent authorities, whether in the same State or in two or more States to which this Act applies, then, he shall file his statement under sub-section (1) of section 6 before the competent authority within the jurisdiction of which the major part thereof is situated and thereafter all subsequent proceedings shall be taken before that competent authority to the exclusion of the other competent authority or authorities concerned and the competent authority, before which the statement is filed, shall send intimation thereof to the other competent authority or authorities concerned.
(2) Where the extent of vacant land held by any person and situated within the jurisdiction of two or more competent authorities within the same State to which this Act applies is equal, he shall file his statement under sub-section (1) of section 6 before any one of the competent authorities and send intimation thereof in such form as may be prescribed to the State Government and thereupon, the State Government shall, by order, determine the competent authority before which all subsequent proceedings under this Act shall be taken to the exclusion of the other competent authority or authorities and communicate that order to such person and the competent authorities concerned.
(3) Where the extent of vacant land held by any person and situated within the jurisdiction of two or more competent authorities in two or more States to which this Act applies is equal, he shall file his statement under sub-section (1) of section 6 before any one of the competent authorities and send intimation thereof in such form as may be prescribed to the Central Government and thereupon, the Central Government shall, by order, determine the competent authority before which all subsequent proceedings shall betaken to the exclusion of the other competent authority or authorities and communicate that order to such person, the State Governments and the competent authorities concerned.
8. Preparation of draft statement as regards vacant land held in excess of ceiling limit-
(1) On the basis of the statement filed under section 6 and after such inquiry as the competent authority may deem fit to make the competent authority shall prepare a draft statement in respect of the person who has filed the statement under section 6.
(2) Every statement prepared under sub-section (1) shall contain the following particulars, namely:--
(i) the name and address of the person;
(ii) the particulars of all vacant land and of any other land on which there is a building, whether or not with a dwelling unit therein, held by such person;
(iii) the particulars of the vacant lands which such person desires to retain within the ceiling limit;
(iv) the particulars of the right, title or interest of the person in the vacant land; and
(v) such other particulars as may be prescribed.
(3) The draft statement shall be served in such manner as may be prescribed on the person concerned together with a notice stating that any objection to the draft statement shall be preferred within thirty days of the service thereof.
(4) The competent authority shall duly consider any objection received, within the period specified in the notice referred to in sub-section (3) or within such further period as may be specified by the competent authority for any good and sufficient reason, from the person whom a copy of the draft statement has been served under that sub-section and the competent authority shall, after giving the objector a reasonable opportunity of being heard, pass such orders as it deems fit.
9. Final Statement.--After the disposal of the objections, if any, received under sub-section (4) of section 8, the competent authority shall make the necessary alterations in the draft statement in accordance with the orders passed on the objections aforesaid and shall determine the vacant land held by the person concerned in excess of the ceiling limit and cause a copy of the draft statement as so altered to be served in the manner referred to in sub-section (3) of section 8 on the person concerned and where such vacant land is held under a lease, or a mortgage, or a hire-purchase agreement, or an irrevocable power of attorney, also on the owner of such vacant land.
10. Acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling limit-
(1) As soon as may be after the service of the statement under section 9 on the person concerned, the competent authority shall cause a notification giving the particulars of the vacant land held by such person in excess of the ceiling limit and stating that--
(i) such vacant land is to be acquired by the concerned State Government; and
(ii) the claims of all person interested in such vacant land may be made by them personally or by their agents giving particulars of the nature of their interests in such land, to be published for the information of the general public in the Official Gazette of the State concerned and in such other manner as may be prescribed.
(2) After considering the claims of the persons interested in the vacant land, made to the competent authority in pursuance of the notification published under sub-section (1), the competent authority shall determine the nature and extent of such claims and pass such orders as it deems fit.
(3) At any time after the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) the competent authority may, by notification published in the Official Gazette of the State concerned, declare that the excess vacant land referred to in the notification published under sub-section (1) shall, with effect from such date as may be specified in the declaration, be deemed to have been acquired by the State Government and upon the publication of such declaration, such land shall be deemed to have vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances with effect from the date so specified.
(4) During the period commencing on the date of publication of the notification under sub-section (1) and ending with the date specified in the declaration made under sub-section (3)--
(i) no person shall transfer by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise any excess vacant land (including any part thereof) specified in the notification aforesaid and any such transfer made in contravention of this provision shall be deemed to be null and void; and
(ii) no person shall alter or cause to be altered the use of such excess vacant land.
(5) Where any vacant land is vested in the State Government under sub-section (3), the competent authority may, by notice in writing, order any person who may be in possession of it to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the State Government or to any person duly authorized by the State Government in this behalf within thirty days of the service of the notice.
(6) If any person refuses or fails to comply with an order made under sub-section (5), the competent authority may take possession of the vacant land or cause it to be given to the concerned State Government or to any person duly authorised by such State Government in this behalf and may for that purpose use such force as may be necessary. Explanation.--In this section, in sub-section (1) of section 11 and in sections 14 and 23, "State Government", in relation to--
(a) any vacant land owned by the Central Government, means the Central Government;
(b) any vacant land owned by any State Government and situated in the Union territory or within the local limits of a cantonment declared as such under section 3 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (2 of 1924), means that State Government.
Section 3 and 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999 are as hereunder :-
3. Saving.--
(1) The repeal of the principal Act shall not affect--
(a) the vesting of any vacant land under sub-section (3) of Section 10, possession of which has been taken over the State Government or any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority;
(b) the validity of any order granting exemption under sub-section (1) of Section 20 or any action taken thereunder, notwithstanding any judgment of any court to the contrary;
(c) any payment made to the State Government as a condition for granting exemption under sub-section (1) of Section 20.
(2) Where--
(a) any land is deemed to have vested in the State Government under sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the principal Act but possession of which has not been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority; and
(b) any amount has been paid by the State Government with respect to such land then, such land shall not be restored unless the amount paid, if any, has been refunded to the State Government.
4. Abatement of legal proceedings.--All proceedings relating to any order made or purported to be made under the principal Act pending immediately before the commencement of this Act, before any court, tribunal or other authority shall abate: Provided that this section shall not apply to the proceedings relating to sections 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the principal Act in so far as such proceedings are relatable to the land, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority.
Upon perusal of the aforesaid provisions of the principal Act, it transpires that Section 6 provides that every person holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit was required to file a statement before the competent authority having jurisdiction specifying the location, extent, value and such other prescribed particulars of the vacant land and of any other land on which there was a building, whether or not with a dwelling unit therein, held by him.
Section 7 provides the procedure for filing of statement in cases where vacant land held by a person was situated within the jurisdiction of two or more competent authorities.
Section 8 provides that on the basis of the statement filed u/s 6 and after such inquiry as the competent authority may deem fit to make, the competent authority shall prepare the draft statement.
Section 8 (3) stipulates that the draft statement prepared u/s 8 shall be served on the person concerned together with a notice stating that any objection to the draft statement shall be prepared within 30 days of the service thereof.
Section 9 provides that after disposal of the objections, if any, received under sub-section (4) of Section 8, the competent authority shall prepare the final statement.
Section 10 (1) provides that after the service of the statement u/s 9 on the person concerned, the competent authority shall cause a notification giving the particulars of the vacant land held by such person in excess of the ceiling limit to be published in the Official Gazette of the State concerned for the information of the general public.
Section 10 (2) empowers the competent authority to decide the claims of the persons interested in the vacant land filed in pursuance of the notification published under sub-section (1).
Section 10 (3) provides that the competent authority concerned may, by notification published in the Official Gazette of the State concerned, anytime after the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) declare that excess vacant land referred to in the notification published under sub-section (1) with effect from such date as may be specified in the declaration, be deemed to be have been acquired by the State Government. Such land shall be deemed to have vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances.
Section 10 (4) prohibits transfer by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise by any person any excess vacant land (including any part thereof) specified in the notification aforesaid and any such transfer made in contravention of this provision shall be deemed to be null and void and no person shall alter or cause to be altered the use of such excess vacant land.
Section 10 (5) empowers the competent authority to order any person by notice in writing who is in possession of any vacant land vested in the State Government under sub-section (3) to surrender or deliver possession thereof to State Government or to any person duly authorized by the State Government in this behalf within thirty days of the service of the notice.
Section 10 (6) states where any person refuses or fails to comply with an order made under sub-section (5), the competent authority may take possession of the vacant land or cause it to be given to the concerned State Government or to any person duly authorized by such State Government in this behalf and may for that purpose use such force as may be necessary.
24. From Perusal of the facts as stated above, it is clear that the actual physical possession of the land in dispute was never taken by the respondents at any point of time. Nothing has been stated in the entire counter affidavit regarding the procedure by which the actual physical possession of the petitioners were taken by the respondents. Moreover as stated above an order dated 17.12.2000 has already been passed by the District Judge, Allahabad in Ceiling Appeal No. 332 of 1995 by which the benefit of the Repealing Act of 1999 has already been provided to the petitioners. Further from perusal of the record it is clear that against the aforesaid order dated 17.12.2000 a Review Petition was preferred by the State Government before the District Judge, Allahabad which was numbered as Misc. Case No. 930 of 2002, the same was rejected by the District Judge, Allahabad vide its order dated 08.08.2008. The aforesaid order has became final between the parties. The entries in the Revenue records were not corrected by the State Authorities, a writ petition was preferred by the petitioners before the Court being Writ Petition No. 68554 of 2011 (Smt. Seeta Devi and Others Supra). On the basis of the directions given by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition on 06.02.2015 a decision has been taken by the respondent no. 4 dated 23.11.2015 rejecting the claim set up by the petitioners. The only reason given in the aforesaid order is that the letters were already written by the District Magistrate to the State Government seeking their comments in the matter. Record further reveals that till date no order whatsoever has been passed by the State Government pursuant to the letters written by the District Magistrate, Allahabad in the matter.
25. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the respondent no. 4 dated 23.11.2015 which is under challenge in the present writ petition is liable to be quashed and the same is hereby quashed. A mandamus is issued to the respondents to correct the Revenue Records accordingly pertaining to the land in dispute by deleting the words 'State Land' from the Revenue Records and record the names of the petitioners in place of 'State Land'. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the respondents specially the respondent no.2/District Magistrate, Allahabad within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him.
26. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to cost.
Order Date :- 20.9.2019 Swati