# Gopal Singh and another v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2010) 1 ILRA 60
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-01-13
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45129 of 2009
- **Bench:** Devendra Pratap Singh, Mrs. Jayashree Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gopal-singh-and-another-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41516
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

U.P. Intermediate Education Act. 1921Section-22-Bar of jurisdiction of civil
Courts-Civil Suit for summoning answer
sheet and to award appropriate marks-
interim-application-civil
court
issued
direction-held-without jurisdiction-order
not sustainable.

Held: Para-8

Having perused the records and having
considered the aforesaid submissions, it
is evident that the entire exercise
undertaken by the plaintiff-respondent
was misdirected and the application for
summoning the answer-books was also
misplaced. The trial court and the
revisional court, therefore, erred in
proceeding to summon the answer-

## Text

60 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
14. Subject to aforesaid direction,
the writ petition is allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.01.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA PRATAP SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. JAYASHREE TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45129 of 2009

Gopal Singh and another
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.K. Vaish

Counsel for the Respondent:
C. S. C.

U.P. Urban land (Ceiling & Regulation)
Act
1976-Section
10(5)
10(6)-Land
declared
Surplus-Physical
possession
remained
with
actual
owner
no
proceeding for taking possession ever
initiated-even compensation not paid
entitled to remain in possession subject
to return of compensation if any paid to
petitioner-direction to delete the name
of state and record the name of owner
given.

Held: Para-5 & 6-

The Repeal Act of 1999 envisages that all
action, subject to the provision made in
that Act itself, shall abate. It is provided
under
Section
3
that
even
if
a
notification under Section 10(3) has
been issued vesting the vacant land in
the
State
Government
and
also
compensation has been paid, but if the
possession has not been taken, the land
would be restored to the land holder,
however,
subject
to
return
of
the
compensation if received. In the present
case,
it
is
not
the
case
of
the
respondents that compensation has been
paid and they have miserably failed that
the
possession
was
ever
taken
in
accordance to the provision of the
repealed Act.

For the reasons above, this petition
stands allowed and the Authorities are
directed to delete the name of the State
from the revenue record and record the
name of the owner of the disputed land
in accordance to law, if possible, within a
period of two months from the date of
submission of a certified copy of this
order.

(Delivered by Hon'ble D.P. Singh, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Standing
counsel.

2. The petitioners have sought a
mandate to the Revenue Authorities to
delete the name of the State in the revenue
record with regard to the disputed land
and record the name of the petitioners as
the rightful owners in view of the fact that
the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)
Act, 1976 has since been repealed w.e.f.
18.3.1999 in view of Act No. 15 of 1999.

3. The petitioners claim to be the
owner in possession of Gata No. 107-A
and 107-B i.e. measuring about 2 bigha
and 17 biswa situated in village Dahtura,
Tehsil Sadar, Agra which fell within the
Nagar Nigam. Proceedings under U.P.
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,
1976 were initiated and 359.637 square
meter land was declared surplus and
though notification under Section 10(3)
was issued in 1993, no proceedings under
Section 10(5) or 10(6) were completed
and
the
actual
physical
possession
remained with the petitioners. It is also
stated that in view of repealed Act, as the
physical possession had not been taken
1 All] Gopal Singh and another V. State of U.P. and others
61
under Section 10 (5) or 10(6), the ceiling
proceedings had abated and the land stood
restored to the petitioner but yet the
Revenue Authorities are not entering his
name.

4. In the counter affidavit though it
is stated that a notification under Section
10(5) was issued, however, neither the
date of possession has been disclosed nor
any possession memo appears to have
been executed. There is nothing on record
to show that the possession even under
Section 10(6) was ever taken. The
petitioners have annexed a copy of the
reply under the Right to Information Act
dated 26.11.2009 issued by the Tehsildar,
Sadar, Agra showing that the actual
physical possession remains with the
petitioners and in fact no legal possession
memo was ever executed with regard to
the disputed land. Thus, it is apparent that
the petitioners are still in possession of
the disputed land.

5. The Repeal Act of 1999 envisages
that all action, subject to the provision
made in that Act itself, shall abate. It is
provided under Section 3 that even if a
notification under Section 10(3) has been
issued vesting the vacant land in the State
Government and also compensation has
been paid, but if the possession has not
been taken, the land would be restored to
the land holder, however, subject to return
of the compensation if received. In the
present case, it is not the case of the
respondents that compensation has been
paid and they have miserably failed that
the
possession
was
ever
taken
in
accordance to the provision of the
repealed Act.

6. For the reasons above, this
petition
stands
allowed
and
the
Authorities are directed to delete the name
of the State from the revenue record and
record the name of the owner of the
disputed land in accordance to law, if
possible, within a period of two months
from the date of submission of a certified
copy of this order.

No order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.01.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 60795 of 2009

Madhyamik Shiksha Parikshad ...Petitioner
Versus
District Judge, Baghpat and others

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri J.S. Tomar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sunil Kumar Dubey

U.P. Intermediate Education Act. 1921Section-22-Bar of jurisdiction of civil
Courts-Civil Suit for summoning answer
sheet and to award appropriate marks-
interim-application-civil
court
issued
direction-held-without jurisdiction-order
not sustainable.

Held: Para-8

Having perused the records and having
considered the aforesaid submissions, it
is evident that the entire exercise
undertaken by the plaintiff-respondent
was misdirected and the application for
summoning the answer-books was also
misplaced. The trial court and the
revisional court, therefore, erred in
proceeding to summon the answer-