Allahabad High Court
Jamuna Devi And Another vs State Of U.P. And 14 Others on 22 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86547-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16463 of 2025 Petitioner :- Jamuna Devi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 14 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinayak Mithal Counsel for Respondent :- Anuj Pratap Singh,C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar Misra Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
1. Heard Shri Vinayak Mithal, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Shri S.K. Misra, learned counsel for respondent no.4.
2. The case of the petitioners is that their predecessor in interest, Om Prakash filed Writ-C No.55818 of 2011 for restraining the respondents from interfering in his peaceful possession over the land declared as excess vacant land under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 as the proceedings had abated in view of U.P. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. The said writ petition was in respect of various plots, amongst which were Plots no.94Aa and 94Ba. The writ petition was allowed by judgement and order dated 05.07.2013. The operative part of the order is as follows:
"Respondents are directed not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner and also to restore entry in his name on moving proper application in accordance with law within shortest possible time, if that is so required."
3. Thereafter, a review application was filed by UPSIDC alleging that under the garb of the order of the High Court, the petitioners are also seeking possession of Plot No.94, area 9-5-10 bigha, which in fact, was not covered by the judgement of this court. It was stated that the same was acquired land and its possession was handed over to UPSIDC by the State in pursuance of land acquisition proceedings. The said review application was disposed of by order dated 04.12.2018 with the clarification that the directions in the writ petition were not in relation to Plot No.94. The petitioners, thereafter, have been requesting the respondents to mutate their name over Plots No.94Aa and 94Ba but the mutation has not been carried out so far. Consequently, the instant petition has been filed praying for various reliefs.
4. Shri Vinayak Mithal, learned counsel for the petitioners, in variance of the reliefs sought, submits that a direction be issued to respondent no.2 to decide the representations dated 09.12.2024 and 15.04.2025 in respect of mutation of the name of petitioners over Plots No. 94Aa and 94Ba.
5. Shri S.K. Misra, learned counsel for respondent no.4 as well as learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State have no objection to the prayer made. It is, however, submitted that representation has to be made to Competent Authority.
6. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of by providing that the petitioners may make fresh representation alongwith true attested copy of the instant order before the Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling and, in case, the said Authority has ceased to exist, before the District Magistrate and in which event, the same will be disposed of within six weeks after hearing all concerned parties.
(Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 22.5.2025 Ankit.