# Kambha Karan v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 570
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-25
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 19612 of 2018
- **Bench:** Saral Srivastava, Sudhanshu Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kambha-karan-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54778
- **Pages:** 67

## Text

_Characters 0–39,760 of 194,756. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39760 for what follows._

570 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 570
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
THE HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.

Writ C No. 19612 of 2018
Connected with other cases

Kambha Karan ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for consideration
The petitioner challenged land ceiling proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976,
claiming they remained in physical possession despite the land being declared surplus and recorded in the
name of the State.

Headnotes
A. Constitution of India,1950-Article 226- Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,1976Sections 8(4), 10(3), 10(5), 10(6)-Repeal Act,1999- Writ jurisdiction-Delay and Laches-Land
Ceiling proceedings-Challenge to declaration of surplus land and possession under the Act,1976Petitions filed after a lapse of nearly three decades-Delay of 34 years from the date of
declaration of surplus land and 26 years from the date of recorded possession is fatal to the writ
petition-The power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 is
discretionary and the relief cannot be claimed as a matter of right-Equity aids the vigilant and
not those who slumber over their rights-Petitioners failed to provide a cogent explanation for
the inordinate delay in approaching the Court-Further, Electricity bills and photographs without
specific plot references or corroborative material cannot be relied upon to establish continuous
possession over the disputed land-Writ petitions dismissed on grounds of laches. (Para 64 to 66)
Held
The court emphasized that Article 226 is a discretionary remedy intended for those who are diligent in
pursuing their legal rights. By waiting over 30 years to challenge the ceiling proceedings, the petitioners were
deemed to have "slumbered over their rights", making the petitions liable for dismissal on the grounds of
laches. (E-6)

Case law Cited
State of Haryana & Anr. Vs Amin Lal (since deceased) through his LRs & Ors., Madan Swaroop Public
Charitable Trust Vs State of U.P. (2000) 6 SCC 325, Bharat Petroleum Company Ltd Vs N.R. Vairamani, (2004)
8 SCC 579, State of U.P. Vs Hari Ram (2013) 4 SCC 280, A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation Vs Tehsildar &
Ors (2025) SCC online SC 447, Dalsukhbhai Bachubhai Satasia & Ors Vs State of Gujarat & Ors , AIR (2026)
SC 475, State of Assam Vs Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma & Ors , (2015) 5 SCC 321, Shiv Ram Singh Vs State of U.P. &
Ors (2015) SCC Online All 8853, Indore Development Authority Vs Manohar Lal, (2020) 8 SCC 129, Kapilaben
Ambalal Patel & Ors Vs State of Gujarat & Ors 2021 (12) SCC 95, Marinmoy Maity Vs Chhanda Koley & Ors,
(2024) 15 SCC 215,Mithai Lal & Ors Vs State of U.P. & Ors Writ C No 38977 of 2022,Ram Raj & Ors Vs State
of U.P. & Ors Writ C No. 32784 of 2023 ,Ganga Singh Vs State of U.P. & Ors Writ C No 29968 of 2018, M/s
3 All. Kambha Karan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
571
Shoeline Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (2017) 16 SCC 104, State of U.P. & Anr. Vs Ehsan & Anr. (2024) 14
SCC 269-referred to.

List of Acts
Constitution of India,1950, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,1976, Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Repeal Act,1999.

List of Keywords
Land Ceiling proceedings, Surplus land, De jure possession, De facto possession, Voluntary Surrender, Forcible
dispossession, Vesting of land, Abatement of proceedings, Writ jurisdiction, Discretionary relief, Delay and
Laches, Equitable remedies, Revenue records(Mutation), Alternative remedy, Civil Suit, Urban Agglomeration.

Case Arising from
Civil jurisdiction: WRIT-C No.- 19612 of 2018
Kumbha Karan Vs. State of U.P. & 2 Ors
From the judgment and order dated 25.03.2026 of the High Court of judicature at Allahabad.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Petitioner(s)
Dhiraj Srvastava, Raj Karan Yadav Yadvendra Kumar Yadav
Advs. for Respondent(s)
C.S.C., Raj Mohan Upadhyay, Ram Raj Singh

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhanshu Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Raj Karan Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Abhinav Krishan Srivastava, learned counsel for the Prayagraj
Development Authority and Sri Rajeshwar Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel II for State.

2. The bunch of present writ petitions arise out of proceedings under the Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the the Act, 1976). The Act, 1976
was repealed by Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as
the the Repeal Act, 1999) and the Repeal Act, 1999 came into force in the State of Uttar
Pradesh on 18.03.1999. All the writ petitions pertain to erstwhile District-Allahabad, now
Prayagraj. In view of the similitude of controversy involved and commonality of dispute, these writ
petitions are being decided by this common judgment and order. Amongst this bunch of writ
petitions, Writ-C No. 19612 of 2018 (Kumbha Karan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) is the leading case
but the relevant factual aspects of all the writ petitions are being narrated briefly along with the
facts of the leading case as contained hereunder ;

(3.1) Writ-C No. 19612 of 2018 (Kumbha Karan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.)

 (a) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

 "(i) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent to
take necessary action and proceed as well as decide the case in pursuance of new Government
order dated 29.9.2015.
572 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 (ii) issue a writ order or direction in the the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to abate the proceeding of case No.P-805/1976 (State Vs. Rishi Ram) village Katka
District Allahabad under Repeal Act 1999.

 (iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the
respondents correct the revenue records in name of petitioner."

 (b) It is stated that the father of the petitioner, Rikhi Ram had filed ceiling return under
Section 6(1) registered as Ceiling Case No. P-805/1976. Thereafter without service of notice under
Section 8(3), an order under Section 8 (4) was passed on 25.02.1986. A notice under Section 10(5)
was issued on 02.08.1996. It has further been claimed that respondents had not taken any steps to
take the possession of the land in dispute under Section 10(6) and the petitioner is in actual
possession over the land in dispute. Rikhi Ram passed away leaving behind Kumbh Karanpetitioner, Jiya Lal, Kanhaiya Lal and Dharmraj, his sons and legal heirs. It is also claimed that the
writ petition was being filed against the inaction of the respondents in not abiding with the
directions contained in government orders moreso, government order dated 29.09.2015.

 (c) It has been further claimed that one, Munnu son of Ram Khelawan, who was one of
the co-tenure-holders, had filed Writ-C No. 30361 of 2010 against his land being declared surplus
under the Act, 1976 and the aforesaid writ petition was allowed vide judgment and order dated
04.07.2013. It has also been stated that Writ-C No. 33320 of 2015 (Baba Lal Vs. State) was filed by
another co-tenure-holder and was allowed on 19.12.2017.

 (d) The respondents per contra, state that in the proceedings under Act, 1976 Rikhi Ram
had filed ceiling return under Section 6(1). Subsequently, notice under Section 8(3) dated
31.03.1985 was issued and the same was served on 14.02.1986. As no objections were filed by the
original land-holder, order under Section 8(4) was passed on 25.02.1986. Subsequently, final
statement under Section 9 was issued on 24.02.1987. It has further been stated that notifications
under Sections 10(1) and Section 10(3) were published in the State Gazette on 14.07.1986 and on
5.7.1996 respectively. Thereafter notice under Section 10(5) for voluntary handing over the
possession was issued on 02.08.1996. In pursuance thereto the land in dispute was recorded in the
name of the State Government during the Fasli year 1402-1407 (corresponding to the year, 19952000). Further in view of the government order dated 11.12.1996 the possession of land in dispute
was transferred to the erstwhile Allahabad Development Authority. The notices under Section 11
(8) of the Act, 1976 were also issued on 18.01.2008, which were duly served on Jiya Lal, son of
Rikhi Ram on 18.01.2008. Baba Lal was not co-tenure holder of the petitioner as per revenue
records relied by the peittoiner. The vacant land has been demarcated for residential purpose in the
master-plan of Allahabad. The writ petition was liable to be dismissed solely on the ground of
delay having been filed after a lapse of 32 years from the date the land was declared as surplus. The
proceedings under the Act, 1976 were never challenged by the original tenure-holder, Rikhi Ram.
The proceedings under the Act, 1976 had attained finality before coming into force of Repeal Act,
1999.

 (e) The petitioner in reply of respondents has stated that the proceedings under Section
10(4) and 10(5) of the Act, 1976 are against a dead person. The contentions of the State in respect
3 All. Kambha Karan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
573
of proceeding under the Act, 1976 and the land in dispute being recorded in the name of State are
not seriously disputed but at the same time it is stated that no proceedings under Section 10(6) of
the Act 1976 have taken place and the petitioner continues to remain in physical possession over
the vacant land and is carrying out agricultural activities over the same. The petitioner has filed
some revenue records and photographs to establish the possession of the petitioner over the land in
dispute.

 (f) It is relevant to state here that the petitioner in the above background has filed a
supplementary affidavit dated 03.02.2022 and brought on record the death certificate of Rikhi Ram
showing his date of death as 22.03.2006 the aforesaid fact is contrary to the plea of the petitioner
that Rikhi Ram had passed away during the proceeding under the Act, 1976.

 (g) In order to ascertain the allegations made by the respective parties in their pleadings
we had summoned the original records of the case and the facts as stated by the respondents in
respect of the proceedings under the Act, 1976 are found to be largely correct. The records also
reveal that no notice under Section 10(6) was issued at any point of time.

(3.2) Writ-C No. 8237 of 2017 (Late Rajendra Prasad through LRs Vs. State & Ors.)

 (a) It is stated that the petitioner had filed ceiling return under Section 6(1) registered as
K-2299 of 1976. Subsequently, notice under Section 8(3) was not served upon the petitioner and
exparte order was passed under Section 8(4). Notice under Section 10(5) was not served upon the
petitioner. It is admitted that the land is recorded in the name of State in the revenue records.
However, the petitioner continues to remain in possession of the land in dispute. It is further
claimed that land mafias were interfering in the possession of the petitioner alleging that the land in
dispute is ceiling land. Besides, the petitioner has claimed the benefit of government order dated
29.09.2015. The ceiling return filed along with the writ petition reveals that the same has been filed
by one, Rajjan @ Rajbhawan. The petitioner although has annexed the Khataunis but there are no
pleadings to the effect as to which part of the land had been declared surplus and have been
recorded in the name of the State and as to which part of the remaining land was recorded in the
name of the petitioner. Besides, the petitioner had filed the photographs in support of his
possession.

 (b) The respondents in response thereto have stated that one Rajjan @ Rajbhawan had
filed ceiling return and the same was registered as Ceiling Case No. K2298/1976 (State vs. Rajjan
@ Rajbhawan). It is also stated that descendants of Late Rajjan @ Rajbhawan, son of Mahadev
included his wife, Nirmala Devi and sons, Konark, Chanakya, Kanishka and Amit. Thus, the
petitioner has nothing to do with the ceiling case. Notice under Section 8(3) was issued on
31.01.1984. However, as no objections were filed order under Section 8(4) was passed on
04.11.1985. Subsequently, final statement under Section 9 was issued. Notification under Sections
10(1) and 10(3) were published in the State Gazette on 29.05.1988 and on 14.04.1990 respectively.
Notice under Section 10(5) for handing over the possession of the land in dispute on 29.09.1993.
Subsequently, the land was mutated in the name of State in the revenue records and the possession
was transferred to the erstwhile Allahabad Development Authority.
574 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(3.3) Writ-C No. 8238 of 2017 (Jamuna Prasad & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.)

 (a) It is stated that Ram Jatan the original tenure holder of the land died leaving behind
three sons, Jamuna Prasad-petitioner no.1, Vijay Kumar-petitioner no.2 and Sangam. Subsequently
Sangam had also passed away leaving behind his widow, Smt. Vimla Devi-petitioner no.4 and
minor son Niranjan Singh-petitioner no.3. Ram Jatan during his life time had filed ceiling return
under Section 6(1) registered as Ceiling Case No. P-353/1976. Subsequently an ex-parte order was
passed under Section 8(4) on 30.12.1985. Notice under Section 10(5) was issued on 26.12.1987 but
was not served. The petitioners are still in possession of the land in dispute and no proceedings
under Section 10(6) of the Act, 1976 have taken place. Reliance has also been placed upon the
government order dated 29.09.2015. It is alleged that land mafia had started interfering in the
possession of the petitioners. The petitioners in support of their case had filed the revenue records,
electricity bills and photographs showing the geo-coordinates of the land.

 (b) The contention of the respondents is that, Ram Jatan had filed a ceiling return under
Section 6(1) of the Act, 1976. Notice under Section 8(3) was issued on 15.12.1985 and served on
Ram Jatan on 23.12.1985. However, as no objections were filed, an order under Section 8(4) was
passed on 30.12.1985. Thereafter notification under Section 10(1) and Section 10(3) were
published in the State gazette on 30.12.1995 and on 7.6.1997 respectively. Notice under Section 10
(5) for handing over possession of the land was issued on 26.12.1997. In pursuance thereto, the
land was recorded in the name of State in the Fasli year 1402-1407 and was transferred to the
erstwhile Allahabad Development Authority. Thereafter notice under Section 11(8) for
determination of compensation/Sandehya Dhanrashi was issued on 24.01.1998 and was served on
Smt. Nirmala, daughter of Ram Jatan on 14.02.1998. Objections were filed against the notice under
Section 11(8) by Ram Jatan on 23.02.1998 but the same were rejected on 13.08.1998. The revenue
records relied upon the petitioner do not pertain to land in dispute under the Act, 1976. The writ
petition has been filed after a delay of 19 years from the date of handing over the possession of the
land.

(3.4) Writ-C No. 8242 of 2017 (Ramdev and others vs. State & Ors.)

 (a) The writ petition has been filed by Ramdev son of Deena Nath, Amrit Lal son of
Maiku Lal and Shivbaran son of Gambhir.

 (b) It is stated that the father of Ramdev-petitioner no. 1, Deena Nath had filed ceiling
return under Section 6(1) registered as Ceiling Case No. P-1510/1976 (State Vs. Deena Nath).
Subsequently no notice was served under Section 8(3) and the order under Section 8(4) was passed
on 30.10.1984. No notice under Section 10(5) was served. Deena Nath passed away leaving behind
three sons namely Ramdev, Baldev and Bajrangi.

 (c) It is further stated that Nanku and Hira had filed ceiling return under Section 6(1)
registered as Ceiling Case No. P-1450/1976. Further, Shivbaran-petitioner no.3, son of Gambhir
had also filed ceiling return under Section 6(1). No notice under Sections 8(3) and 10(5) was served
upon the petitioner no. 3.
3 All. Kambha Karan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
575
 (d) It is also stated that Maiku Lal had filed ceiling return under Section 6(1) registered as
Ceiling Case No. P-1527/1976 (State Vs. Maiku Lal). No notice was served under Section 8(3) and
order under Section 8(4) was passed on 23.09.1983. No notice under Section 10(5) was served.

 (e) The petitioners were in possession of the vacant land. Further land mafias were
interfering in the possession of the petitioners. Besides, the petitioners have claimed the benefit of
government order dated 02.04.1994 in pursuance to which the proceedings under the Act, 1976
were stopped in respect of agricultural land. The petitioners in support of their contentions have
filed CH Form 23 issued under Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, however, the same shows that
the land is recorded in the name of the State-Competent Authority (Urban Ceiling). Besides, the
petitioners have also filed electricity bills and photographs.

 (f) The respondents in response thereto have stated that Deena Nath had filed ceiling
return registered as Ceiling Case No. P-1510 of 1976. Notice under Section 8(3) was served on the
original land holder, Deena Nath on 20.10.1984. However as no objections were filed, order under
Section 8(4) was passed on 14.11.1984. The final statement under Section 9 was issued on
08.05.1987. Notification under Sections 10(1) and 10(3) were published in the State Gazette on
10.03.1990 and on 14.02.1996 respectively. Notice under Section 10(5) was issued on 22.04.1996
and served upon son of Deena Nath, Baldev on 23.08.1996. Subsequently, the land was mutated in
the name of the State Government and possession of the land in dispute was transferred to the
erstwhile Allahabad Development Authority.

 (g) It is further stated that father of petitioner no.2 Maiku Lal, son of Gambhir had filed
ceiling return registered as Ceiling Case No. 1527 of 1976. Subsequently notice under Section 8(3)
was issued on 13.03.1981 and served on Maiku Lal on 01.04.1981. However, as no objections were
filed, order under Section 8(4) was passed on 23.09.1982. The final statement under Section 9 was
issued on 19.08.1985 and served on Mewa Lal, son of Maiku Lal. Notification under Sections 10(1)
and 10(3) were published in the State Gazette on 05.12.1987 and on 24.02.1996 respectively.
Notice under Section 10(5) for handing over the possession was issued on 27.04.1996.
Subsequently, the vacant land was mutated in the name of State in the revenue records and
transferred to erstwhile Allahabad Development Authority.

 (h) It is also stated that Nanku, Hira and Pachai, all sons of Anganu had filed ceiling
return registered as Ceiling Case No. P-1460 of 1976. Subsequently notice under Section 8(3) was
issued and served. As no objections were filed, order under Section 8(4) was passed on 05.10.1981.
Final statement under Section 9 was issued. Notification under Sections 10(1) and 10(3) were
published in the State Gazette on 14.07.1986 and on 06.07.1996 respectively. Notice under Section
10(5) was issued on 02.08.1996. The vacant land was mutated in the name of State in the revenue
records and was transferred to erstwhile Allahabad Development Authority.

 (I) Further Ceiling Case No. P-1510/ 1976 pertains to petitioner no. 1 and Ceiling Case
No. P-1527/1976 pertains to petitioner no. 2. However, so far as Ceiling Case No. P-1450/1976 is
concerned it is difficult to understand as to how the same relates to any of the petitioners nor are
there any pleadings in support thereof.
576 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(3.5) Writ-C No. 26381 of 2017 (Brij Lal Vs. State & Ors )

 (a) It is stated that the grand father of the petitioner, Mahadev had filed ceiling return
under Section 6(1) registered as Ceiling Case No. P-531/1976. Subsequently proceedings under
Section 10(3) and Section 10(5) were completed. Mahadev died leaving behind his son, Sharda
Prasad. Subsequently, Sharda Prasad also died leaving behind two sons, Indraj and Brij Lalpetitioner.

 (b) It is also stated that Sahdev, son of Ramadhin, who was the brother of Mahadev had
also filed ceiling return registered as Ceiling Case No. P-542/1976. Sahdev passed away prior to
passing of the order under Section 8(4). Notice under Section 10(5) was issued on 14.10.1997 but
was not served upon the petitioner. It is further stated that Sahdev was unmarried and after his
demise, the land devolved upon Sharda Prasad, the father of the petitioner.

 (c) It is stated that the possession of the vacant land continues to remain with the
petitioner. The petitioner has sought relief in respect of the land involved in both the ceiling cases.
The petitioner has filed revenue records but there is no pleading to the effect as to whether the
records pertain to the same land, which was a part of the proceedings under the Act, 1976 or pertain
to the remaining land left out of ceiling. Besides the petitioner have also filed electricity bills and
photographs showing the geo-coordinates of the land.

 (d) The respondents in response thereto have admitted the fact that Sahdev had filed
ceiling return under Section 6(1) of the Act, 1976. Subsequently notice under Section 8(3) was
issued on 22.1.1979 and served. As no objections were filed, order under Section 8(4) was passed
on 22.2.1985. Thereafter final statement was issued under Section 9 on 19.6.1986. Notification
under Section 10(1) and Section 10(3) were published in the State Gazette on 11.11.1995 and on
7.6.1997 respectively. Notice under Section 10(5) for handing over the possession of land was
issued on 14.10.1997. Notice under Section 11(8) for Sandheya Dhanrashi/Compensation was
issued on 05.02.1998 but no objection was filed. Further one of plots comprised in vacant land falls
in Trivenipuram Awas Yojana, erstwhile Allahabad.

 (e) Further Sharda Prasad and not Mahadev, father of Sharda Prasad had filed ceiling
return under Section 6(1). Notice under Section 8(3) was issued on 25.11.1981 and was served
upon the original land holder on 29.12.1981. As no objections were filed, order under Section 8(4)
was issued on 01.10.1984. Subsequently final statement under Section 9 was issued and
notifications under Section 10(1) and Section 10(3) were published in the State gazette on
14.07.1986 and on 04.03.1995 respectively. Thereafter notice under Section 10(5) for handing over
possession was issued. The possession of the land was transferred to the erstwhile Allahabad
Development Authority.

 (f) It is categorically stated that two other writ petitions arising out of Ceiling Case No. P542/1976 and Ceiling Case No. P-531/1976 have already been filed before this Court being Writ
Petition No. 6765 of 2018 (Mewa Lal Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) and Writ Petition No. 26382
of 2017 (Pramod Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. ). The fact regarding filing of other writ
petitions arising out of the same ceiling cases is not disputed.
3 All. Kambha Karan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
577
(3.6) Writ C No. 6765 of 2018 (Mewa Lal Yadav v. State of U.P and others)

 (a) It is stated that Mahadev the original tenure holder had filed ceiling return registered
as Case No. 531/76 and Sahdev, the real brother of Mahadev had filed ceiling return registered as
Case No. 542/76. Sahdev and Mahadev passed away leaving behind two sons, Brij Lal and Indraj,
sons of Sharda Prasad, son of Mahadev. In the ceiling proceedings the actual possession of the
property was not taken and no proceedings under Section 10 (6) had ever taken place in both the
cases. The petitioner purchased Gata No. 120, measuring 419.21 sq. yards on 24.07.2004 from
recorded owner, Shiv Bhan Yadav. The petitioner had submitted a map before Development
Authority but the same was rejected on 28.06.2016 on the ground that the land was ceiling land.
Though in the revenue records the land is recorded in the name of the State but the petitioner is in
possession of the same. Purchasers of the different areas in the same plot had filed the writ
petitions, Writ-C No. 9074 of 2013 (Dr. Shyam Kartikey Dwivedi v. State of U.P. and others) and
Writ C No. 17220 of 2009 (Dr. Kailash Nath Gupta and anothers vs. State of U.P. and others) and
the same were allowed vide judgment and orders dated 15.07.2014 and 16.07.2015 respectively.
The petitioner has further alleged that the land mafias were interfering in the possession and has
also claimed benefit of government order dated 29.09.2015. Hence, the petitioner amongst others
has sought abatement of Ceiling Case No. P-542/76, which is in respect of land of Sahdev. The
petitioner although claims to be in possession of the land in dispute but has not filed any evidence
in support thereof.

(b) The respondents in response thereto have stated that the original tenure holder Sahdev
had filed ceiling return registered as Ceiling Case No. P-542/1976 (State v. Sahdev). Thereafter
notice under Section 8(3) was issued on 22.10.1976 and served upon the land holder. As no
objections were filed, order under Section 8(4) was passed on 22.02.1985. The notice along final
settlement was issued on 19.06.1986 under Section 9. Notifications under Section 10 (1) and
Section 10 (3) were published in the State Gazette on 11.11. 1995 and on 07.06.1997 respectively.
Thereafter notice for voluntary handing over of possession under Section 10 (5) was issued on
14.10.1997. Pursuant thereto the land was recorded in the name of State and possession thereof was
transferred to the erstwhile Allahabad Development Authority. It is further contended that two
more writ petitions arising out of Ceiling Case No. P-542 of 1076 (State v. Sahdev) and Ceiling
Case No. P-531 of 1976 bearing Writ C No. 26381 of 2017 (Brij Lal v. State of U.P. and others)
and Writ C No. 26382 of 2017 (Pramod Kumar Pandey and others v. State of U.P. and others) are
pending before this Court.

(3.7) Writ C No. 6926 of 2016 (Late Mohib Ullah through LRs v. State of U.P. and
others)

 (a) It is stated that petitioner had filed ceiling return registered as Ceiling Case No. 1095
/1976 (State v. Mohib Ullah). Notice under Section 10(5) was issued on 28.03.1979 but not served
upon the petitioner. The respondents have never taken possession of the land in dispute. It is
admitted that the name of State is recorded in the revenue records. It is stated that on the basis of
illegal order passed under Section 8(4) the Competent Authority has proceeded further under
Section 10 (3) but the possession has not been taken under Section 10 (5) and Section 10 (6). Land
mafia were interfering in the possession of the petitioner. Besides the petitioner also claims benefit
578 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of government order dated 29.09.2015. The petitioner in support of his contention that he is in
possession of the land in question has filed the khasra of Fasli 1427 of Gata No. 14 M and
photographs. The petitioner passed away during the pendency of the writ petition on 19.03.2017.

 (b) It is pointed out that there is no effective reply on behalf of the respondents on the
merits of the controversy and it is stated that the records of the concerned ceiling case are not
available. However, it is contended that the facts of the present case are similar to those of others in
this bunch of petitions. Further, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed solely on the ground of
delay, the voluntary possession being handed over in the year 1979 and the writ petition having
been filed in the year 2016 after a lapse of 37 years thereafter.

(3.8) Writ-C No. 6679 of 2018 (Ram Sumer Vs. State & Ors.)

 (a) It is stated that grandfather of petitioner, Mahadev had filed ceiling return under
Section 6(1) registered as Ceiling Case No. 1751/1976. An ex-parte order dated 03.11.1982 was
passed under Section 8(4). Notice under Section 10(5) was issued on 13.02.1990 but no further
proceedings were held under the Act, 1976 and the petitioner continues to remain in physical
possession of the vacant land. It is further stated that Mahadev passed away leaving behind three
sons, Hira Lal, Mohan Lal and Baccha Lal. The sole petitioner in the present writ petition is Ram
Sumer, son of Hira Lal. It is also admitted that the land has been recorded in the name of State in
the revenue records. Reliance has been placed by the government order dated 09.02.2000 issued in
pursuance to the Repeal Act, 1999 and the government order dated 29.09.2015. It has been stated
that the petitioner had filed a representation dated 26.06.2017 before the Competent Authority
along with the other co-tenure holders i.e. Mohan Lal and Baccha Lal, but the same was of no
avail. Besides, the petitioner has filed Khatauni in respect of Khasra Plot No. 470M and
photographs showing the geo-coordinates of the land.

 (b) The respondents in response thereto have admitted the fact that the ceiling return was
filed under Section 6(1) of the Act, 1976 by Mahadev. Subsequently, notice under Section 8(3)
dated 31.03.1981 was served upon the original land holder, Mahadev on 22.04.1981. However, as
no objections were filed, an order under Section 8(4) was passed on 03.11.1982. The final
statement under Section 9 was issued on 25.01.1985 and served upon the original land holder,
Mahadev. The notifications under Sections 10(1) and 10(3) were published in the State Gazette on
01.03.1986 and on 18.09.1986 respectively. Thereafter, notice under Section 10(5) was issued on
15.02.1990 and the same was served upon the original land holder on 16.02.1990. The revenue
records relied upon do not pertain to the land under the Act, 1976. In pursuance thereto the land
was recorded in the name of State in the revenue records and was transferred to the erstwhile
Allahabad Development Authority.

(9) Writ-C No. 6701 of 2018 (Ram Awadh Vs. State & Ors.)

 (a) It is stated that the father of the petitioner, Bachha Lal had filed ceiling return under
Section 6(1) registered as Ceiling Case No. K-1759/1976. Subsequently without any service of
notice under Section 8(3) an ex-parte order dated 05.10.1982 was passed under Section 8(4). Notice
under Section 10(5) was issued on 22.05.1996 and no further proceedings under the Act, 1976 took
3 All. Kambha Karan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
579
place thereafter. The father of the petitioner died leaving behind his, wife Smt. Ram Sawari and the
petitioner as his legal heirs. It is admitted that the land in dispute is recorded in the name of State
but it is also stated that the petitioner continues to remain in possession of the land in dispute.
Reliance has been placed upon the government order dated 09.02.2000 and government order dated
29.09.2015. It is also stated that the petitioner has filed representation dated 20.06.2017 for
correction of the revenue records. Further land mafias were interfering in the possession of the
petitioner. Besides the petitioner has also relied upon the revenue records of Khasra Plot No. 663A,
recorded in the name of the father of the petitioner. Further the petitioner has filed photographs
showing the geo-coordinates of the land.

 (b) The respondents in response thereto have admitted the fact that Bachha Lal had filed
ceiling return under Section 6(1) of the Act, 1976. Subsequently, notice was issued under Section
8(3) on 19.11.1981 and was served the nephew of the original land holder, Ram Pal on 02.12.1981.
As no objections were filed, an order under Section 8(4) was passed on 05.10.1982. Subsequently
final statement under Section 9 was issued on 30.06.1984. Thereafter notifications under Sections
10(1) and 10(3) were published in the State Gazette on 14.07.1986 and on 23.03.1996 respectively.
Notice under Section 10(5) for handing over the possession was issued on 23.05.1996. In pursuance
thereto, the land was recorded in the name of State in the revenue records and was transferred to the
erstwhile Allahabad Development Authority.

(3.10) Writ-C No. 11225 of 2018 (Raghvendra Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. State & Ors.)

 (a) It is stated that Mahadev, father of the petitioner had filed ceiling return under Section
6(1) and the registered as Ceiling Case No. K2227/1976. Subsequently notice under Section 8(3)
was not served and order under Section 8(4) was passed on 23.8.1982. Notice under Section 10(5)
was issued on 17.12.1986 but the same was also not served upon the petitioner. Mahadev died in
the year, 1982 and has been succeeded by two sons, Bhagwat Prasad and Muneem-petitioner no.3.
Bhagwat Prasad had also passed away in September, 2017 leaving behind two sons, Raghvendra
Kumar-petitioner no.1 and Ajeet Kumar-petitioner no.2. Reliance has been placed on government
order dated 29.9.2015. It is admitted that the land is recorded in the name of State Government in
the revenue records. However, it is stated that no proceedings under Section 10 (6) have taken
place and the petitioners continue to remain in possession of the land. Further land mafia tried to
interfere in the possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute. Reliance is also placed on
Government order dated 2.4.1994 by means of which the proceedings under the Act, 1976 in
respect of agricultural land had been stopped.

 (b) The respondents in reply thereto admit that the ceiling return under Section 6(1) was
filed by Mahadev. Notices under Section 8(3) were issued on 4.3.1982 and duly served upon Smt.
Nanki, wife of Mahadev. As no objections were filed, order under Section 8(4) was passed on
23.8.1982. The final statement was prepared under Section 9 on 10.8.1984 and served upon
Bhagwat Prasad, son of Mahadev on 12.10.1984 but no objections were filed. Notification under
Section 10(1) and Section 10(3) were published in the State Gazette on 16.11.1985 and on 5.4.1986
respectively. Subsequently, notice under Section 10(5) was issued on 17.12.1986 and was served
upon Muneem-petitioner no.3. In pursuance thereto the land was recorded in the name of the State
580 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Government in the revenue records and transferred to the erstwhile Allahabad Development
Authority.

(3.9) Writ -C No.11226 of 2018 (Pushpa Devi & Anr. Vs. State & Ors.)

 (a) It is stated that the father of the petitioners, Sankhata Prasad had filed a ceiling return
under Section 6(1) registered as Ceiling Case No. K-2415/1976. Subsequently an ex-parte order
under Section 8(4) was passed on 23.3.1981. Notice under Section 10(5) was issued on 1.1.1996
and was not served upon the land holder. It is stated that no proceedings under Section 10(6) had
taken place and the petitioners are in physical possession of the land in dispute. Reliance has been
placed on government order dated 29.9.2015 and on government order dated 2.4.1994 wherein a
direction was issued to stop proceedings in respect of agricultural land.

 (b) The respondents in response thereto admit that Sankatha Prasad had submitted a
ceiling return under Section 6(1). Subsequently, a notice under Section 8(3) was issued on
17.5.1979. However as no objections were filed, an order dated 23.3.1981 was passed under
Section 8(4). Final Statement was prepared under Section 9 and served personally on the original
land holder. Thereafter notification under Section 10(1) and Section 10(3) were published in the
State Gazette on 22.2.1986 and on 11.3.1985 respectively. Notice under Section 10 (5) was issued
on 1.1.1996. In pursuance thereto the land in dispute was recorded in the name of State
Government in the revenue records and transferred to the erstwhile Allahabad Development
Authority. It is also stated that Sankhata Prasad had filed an appeal before the District Judge
bearing Appeal No. 959 of 1999 (Sankatha Prasad vs. State of U.P.). The said appeal was dismissed
vide order dated 27.9.2008.

(3.12) Writ -C No.19678 of 2018 (Buddhan Prasad Vs. State)

 (a) It is stated that Jokhu, Jawahir, Heera and Moti all sons of Mahadev were recorded
bhumidhar of the land in dispute. Dukhharan, son of Jawahir had filed ceiling return under Section
6(1). Besides Jokhu, Moti and Heera, sons of Mahadev had also filed ceiling return under Section
6(1) registered as Ceiling Case No. P-144/76.

 (b) An order under Section 8(4) was passed illegally and without jurisdiction and
subsequently notification under Section 10 (3) was issued. It is further stated that the respondents
had not taken possession of the land in question as provided under Section 10(5) and Section 10(6)
of the Act, 1976. It is also stated that Sri Dukharan had filed Writ-C No.68563 of 2012 and the
same was allowed vide judgment and order dated 15.5.2014. Some land mafias were interfering in
the possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute. The petitioner in support of his case has
filed copy of the electricity bills in the name of the petitioner and some photographs of land.

 (c) The respondents in response thereto state that Jokhu, Moti and Heera, all sons of
Mahadev and Dukharan, son of Jawahir, both the parties had filed their ceiling return under Section
6(1) registered as Ceiling Case No. P-144/76 (State Vs. Jokhu and Ors.). Notice dated 23.3.1982
was under Section 8(3) and was served upon the wife of Dukharan in person. As no objections
were filed, order was passed under Section 8(4) on 13.09.1982. Thereafter final statement under
3 All. Kambha Karan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
581
Section 9 of the Act, 1976 was issued on 25.2.1985 but no objections were filed. Notification under
Section 10(1) and Section 10(3) were published in the State gazette. Subsequently notice under
Section 10(5) was issued on 18.9.1992. Separate notices under Section 10(5) were served on
Dukharan son of Jawahir and Jokhu, Moti and Heera, all sons of Mahadev. In pursuance thereto the
name of the State was mutated in the revenue records and land was transferred to the erstwhile
Allahabad Development Authority. Hence, proceedings under the Act, 1976 stood concluded. A
review petition has been filed against the order dated 15.5.2014 passed in Writ-C No. 68563 of
2012.

 (d) The writ petition has been filed by Buddhan Prasad, son of Jokhu. There is nothing on
record to show that Jawahir was the son of Mahadev. Admittedly Dukkharan son of Jawahir and
Jokhu, Heera and Moti all sons of Mahadev had filed separate ceiling returns and had been issued
separate notices under Section 10(5).

(3.13) Writ-C No. 19694 of 2018 (Devendra Kumar Jaiswal Vs. State & Ors.)

 (a) It is stated that the father of the petitioner, Shambhu Nath had filed a ceiling return
under Section 6(1) registered as Ceiling Case No. K-2236/1976 (State Vs. Sambhu Nath). No
proper notice under Section 8(3) was served and order under Section 8(4) was passed on
29.04.1985. The notice under Section 10(5) was issued on 21.08.1990 but was not served upon the
original land holder. The father of the petitioner, Shambhu Nath passed away on 04.01.2006,
leaving behind the petitioner as his sole legal heir. It is admitted that the vacant land is recorded in
the name of State in the revenue records. It is further submitted that some land mafias started
interfering in the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner in support of his contention has relied
upon the government order dated 02.04.1994.