# Munnu and others v. State of U.P.Through Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and others

- **Citation:** (2011) 3 ILRA 1446
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-12-15
- **Bench:** Devi Prasad Singh, S.C. Chaurasia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/munnu-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-through-prin-secy-revenue-lko-and-others-42075
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation ) Act
1976-repealed by Urban Land (Ceiling &
Regulation) Repeal Act 1999-Section-4Abatement
of
proceeding-pending-on
date of enforcement date 18.03.1989-all
proceedings stand automatically abated
in view of law laid down by Apex Court in
Ritesh Tiwari case.

Held: Para 5

In view of above, we dispose of the writ
petitions finally directing the revenue
authorities/respondents to abide by the
judgment
of
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court(supra) and not to interfere with
the petitioners' peaceful possession of
the land in question in case in view of
the provisions contained in 1976 Act
(supra),
the
State
had
not
taken
possession of the land in dispute.
Case law discussed:
(2007) 11 SCC 90; 2011 (3) SCCD 1382 (SC)

## Text

1446 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011

24. Thus these writ petitions are
liable on this ground too as the similar writ
petitions have already been dismissed.

25. Taking the holistic view of the
matter, I find no good ground to interfere
under Article 226 of the Constitution and
the writ petitions are hereby dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 15.12.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DEVI PRASAD SINGH,J.
THE HON'BLE S.C. CHAURASIA,J.

Misc. Bench No. - 11512 of 2011

Munnu and another

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P.Through Prin. Secy. Revenue
Lko. and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
A.P.Singh Vats

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation ) Act
1976-repealed by Urban Land (Ceiling &
Regulation) Repeal Act 1999-Section-4Abatement
of
proceeding-pending-on
date of enforcement date 18.03.1989-all
proceedings stand automatically abated
in view of law laid down by Apex Court in
Ritesh Tiwari case.

Held: Para 5

In view of above, we dispose of the writ
petitions finally directing the revenue
authorities/respondents to abide by the
judgment
of
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court(supra) and not to interfere with
the petitioners' peaceful possession of
the land in question in case in view of
the provisions contained in 1976 Act
(supra),
the
State
had
not
taken
possession of the land in dispute.
Case law discussed:
(2007) 11 SCC 90; 2011 (3) SCCD 1382 (SC)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh,J. )

1. In this bunch of writ petitions,
common question of facts and law are
involved, hence, the writ petitions are
taken up together and are being disposed
of by the present common judgment with
the consent of the parties' counsel.

2. The land in dispute falls within
the domain of Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation)Act, 1976. It was repealed by
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)
Repeal Act, 1999. According to the
petitioners' counsel, after repeal of the
Act,
the
proceedings
initiated
in
pursuance to the Repeal Act became
nonest and the petitioners are entitled to
retain the possession of land in question
with hereditary right. Attention of this
Court has been invited to the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
reported in (2007)11 SCC 90 Mukarram
Ali Khan versus State of U.P and others
and other other judgment reported in
2011(3) SCCD 1382 (SC) Ritesh Tewari
and another versus State of U.P. &
others.

3. In the case of Mukkarram Ali
Khan (supra), their Lordships of Hon'ble
Supreme Court ruled that in view of
repeal of 1976 Act(supra) and being
adopted by the State of U.P by a
resolution as required under Art. 252(2)
of the Constitution and the repealing Act
having come into force in the State of U.P
with effect from 18.3.1999, all pending
proceedings under 1976 Act shall be
treated to have abated. The operation
3 All] Munnu and others V. State of U.P.Through Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and others
1447
portion of the judgment from Mukarram
Ali Khan (supra) is reproduced as under :

2. Though many points were urged
in support of the appeal, the primary
point urged was that possession has not
been taken pursuant to orders passed by
the authorities under the Act. An
affidavit has been filed indicating that
the possession of the land has not been
taken and the land in question continues
to be in possession of the appellant and
his sons.

3.
Learned
Counsel
for
the
respondent-State and its functionaries
on the other hand contended that the
point regarding earlier adjudication was
not urged before the High Court and
therefore the High Court has rightly
decided that in the absence of any
specific plea a new plea cannot be taken
before it.

4. It is to be noted that the Act has
been replaced under the Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1999 (in
short the 'Repeal Act'). Admittedly the
State of Uttar Pradesh has since adopted
the provisions of the Repeal Act by a
resolution as required under Article
252(2) of the Constitution of India,
1950 (in short the
'Constitution').
Repealing Act has since come into force
in the State of Uttar Pradesh with effect
from 18.3.1999.

5. Section 4 of the Repeal Act reads
as follows:

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
insofar
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.

6. In view of the affidavit filed by
the appellant to which no objection has
been filed, undisputed position is that
the State has not taken the possession
over the surplus land. Therefore, the
proceedings have to be treated to have
abated under Section 4 of the Repeal
Act.

7. That being so, the appeal
deserves to be allowed which we
direct."

4. In the case of Ritesh Tewari
(supra),
again
their
Lordships
of
Hon'ble Supreme Court have considered
the question with regard to the affect of
the repeal Act. Their Lordships held that
the communication between the officers
of the department shall not be a ground
to affect the rights of the parties. With
regard to Repeal Act in the case of
Ritesh Tewari (supra), Hon'ble Supreme
Court has considered earlier judgment
and held that all pending proceedings
under
1973
Act
shall
be
abated
automatically on the commencement of
Repealing Act, 1999 provided the
possession of the land involved in a
particular case has not been taken taken
by the State. To quote relevant portion :
1448 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011

"13. We find full force in the
submissions so made by Shri Jayant
Bhushan to a certain extent, and hold
that all proceedings pending before any
court/authority under the Act, 1976,
stood
abated
automatically
on
commencement of the Act 1999 in
force, provided the possession of the
land involved in a particular case had
not been taken by the State. Such a view
is in consonance with the law laid down
by this Court in Pt. Madan Swaroop
Shrotiya Public Charitable Trust vs.
State of U.P. And others, (2000) 6 SCC
325: Ghasitey Lal Sahu and another vs.
Competent Authority, (2004) 13 SCC
452: Mukarram Ali Khan vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and others, (2007) 11
SCC 90: 2007 (3) SCCD 1344 (SC) and
Smt. Sulochana Chandrakant Galande
vs. Pune Municipal Transport and
others, JT 2010 SC 298."

5. In view of above, we dispose of
the writ petitions finally directing the
revenue authorities/respondents to abide
by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court(supra) and not to interfere with
the petitioners' peaceful possession of
the land in question in case in view of
the provisions contained in 1976 Act
(supra),
the
State
had
not
taken
possession of the land in dispute.

6. The writ petitions are disposed
of accordingly. No order as to costs.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.12.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE S. V.SINGH RATHORE, J.

Misc. Bench No. - 12692 of 2011

Ram Lallan and others
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. Through Secy. Home U.P.
Govt. Lucknow and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Dileep Singh Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate

Constitution of India, Article 226-stay of
arrest-offence under section 452, 323,
504, 506 I.P.C.-with allegations police
trying to arrest ignoring law laid down
by this Hon'ble Court as well as the Apex
Court-No doubt-direction of Apex Court
equally binding upon every court as
including Police officer-in absence of
specific pleading in writ petition-arrest
can not be stayed-as prima faci offence
made out-petition dismissed with liberty
if any illegality committed by Police
contrary to direction of Apex Court-ca
approach before appropriate forum.

Held: Para 7

In our view, in this particular case there
is no such pleading substantiated with
appropriate material that any Police
officer is acting illegally so as to warrant
any protection/direction from this Court.
However, we make it clear that in case
any authority acts illegally, it is always
open
to
petitioners
to
approach
appropriate Forum including this Court
for
appropriate
protection
but
no
mandamus at this stage ought be issued
particularly when the first information