# Netra Pal Singh & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 763
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-03-29
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 34859 of 2013
- **Bench:** Salil Kumar Rai, Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/netra-pal-singh-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50285
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Ceiling Law - UP Urban Land (Ceiling
and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 -
Sections 8(4), 10(1) & 10(5) - UP Urban
Land
Ceiling
(Taking
of
Possession,
Payment of Amount and Allide Matters)
Direction, 1983 - Abatement of ceiling -
Earlier ceiling process was set aside by the
appellate court - No possession was taken
u/s 10(6) of Act of 1999 - Effect - Held,
the St. has not brought on record any
material
to
show
that
the
actual
possession was taken from the petitioner
in
pursuance
of
the
fresh
ceiling
proceeding initiated on the basis of order
dated
10.2.1993
of
the
competent
authority, hence the ceiling proceeding
regarding the land of the petitioners, in
question has been abated under the Act,

## Text

5 All. Netra Pal Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
763
handed over to auction purchaser, however,
as referred above, it cannot be construed to
be a legal document for possession.

23. The above referred document is
not signed by any officer of bank, bank seal
is also absent. Name of authorized officer
is
also
not
disclosed.
The
alleged
authorized
representative
of
auction
purchaser has also not disclosed his
name. There is no document on record
how he was appointed as authorized
representative of auction purchaser as
well as there are no witnesses to the
process of handing over of auction
property; as well as inventory has also
not placed on record though it was
mentioned in abovereferred letter that
inventory was also enclosed, therefore,
there is no need to remand the matter to
DRT for fresh consideration after giving
opportunity to parties to give evidence as
the best evidence is before the Court but
it could not be considered to be a legal
document for handing over possession of
property to auction purchaser.

24. Accordingly, writ petition is
allowed
and
impugned
order
dated
19.10.2020 is hereby quashed.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 763
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Writ-C No. 34859 of 2013

Netra Pal Singh & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Satyendra Nath Tiwari, Sri Anupam
Kulshreshtha, Sri Mahesh Gautam

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Ceiling Law - UP Urban Land (Ceiling
and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 -
Sections 8(4), 10(1) & 10(5) - UP Urban
Land
Ceiling
(Taking
of
Possession,
Payment of Amount and Allide Matters)
Direction, 1983 - Abatement of ceiling -
Earlier ceiling process was set aside by the
appellate court - No possession was taken
u/s 10(6) of Act of 1999 - Effect - Held,
the St. has not brought on record any
material
to
show
that
the
actual
possession was taken from the petitioner
in
pursuance
of
the
fresh
ceiling
proceeding initiated on the basis of order
dated
10.2.1993
of
the
competent
authority, hence the ceiling proceeding
regarding the land of the petitioners, in
question has been abated under the Act,
1999. The petitioners are entitled to retain
the land and respondents are directed not
to interfere in the possession of the above
land. (Para 7 and 9)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. St. of U.P. Vs Hari Ram; (2013) 4 SCC 280

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh
Deshwal, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned Standing Counsel
for the State.

2. The present petition has been filed
with the following prayers:-

"i) Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus declaring all the
proceedings over the land in question
764 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
measuring 2971.7566 sq. meter, situated in
Village
Dhandhupura
Tajganj,
Tehsil
Sadar, District Agra belonging to the
petitioners as abated in view of the
provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.

ii) issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of Mandamus commanding
the respondents not to interfere in peaceful
occupation and possession over the land in
question of the petitioners measuring
2971.7566 sq. meter, situated in Village
Dhandhupura
Tajganj,
Tehsil
Sadar,
District Agra."

3. The contention of the petitioners is
that the ceiling proceeding under U.P.
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)
Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as
"Act, 1999") was initiated against their
father Chiddan Singh by order dated
4.7.1979 passed u/s 8(4) of the Act, 1999
declaring 2971.7566 sq. meters as surplus
land in Village Dhandhupura Tajganj,
Tehsil Sadar, District Agra. Thereafter,
proceeding u/s 10(1) and 10(5) of the Act,
1999 were also initiated, but actual and
physical possession was not taken.

4. Aggrieved by the order dated
4.7.1979 of the competent authority, the
tenure holder Chiddan Singh preferred an
appeal before the appellate authority
bearing Misc. Appeal No. 146 and the same
was allowed and order dated 4.7.1979 of
the competent authority was set aside by
order dated 16.10.1986 and the matter was
remanded back to the competent authority
with direction for serving fresh draft
statement u/s 8(3) of the Act, 1999. In
pursuance of the order dated 16.10.1986,
the competent authority again initiated
proceedings
against
Chiddan
Singh,
declaring 2971.7566 sq. meters as surplus
land. Thereafter notice u/s 10(1) was issued
on 15.2.1993l, notice u/s 10(3) was issued
on 6.7.1993 and thereafter notice u/s 10(5)
was issued on 17.2.1994.

5. It is further contended by learned
counsel for the petitioners that though
notice u/s 10(5) in fresh ceiling proceeding
was issued on 17.2.1994 but possession
was not taken from the petitioners and till
day they are in possession of the aforesaid
land which was declared as surplus land. It
was also submitted that the father of the
petitioners was the original tenure holder
and he died on 15.4.2009.

6. On the other hand learned Standing
Counsel stated that the possession of the
surplus land was taken in the first round of
ceiling proceeding on 29.4.1986. But this
fact could not be disputed by the Standing
Counsel that the possession was not taken
after issuance of fresh notice u/s 10(5)
dated 17.2.1994.

7. After hearing rival contentions of
the parties and on perusal of the record, we
are of the opinion that once the initial order
of competent authority dated 4.7.1979 was
set aside by the appellate court on
16.10.1986
then
all
consequential
proceedings including the possession in
first round of the proceeding lapsed and it
is undisputed that in fresh round of ceiling
proceeding, possession of the land in
question was not taken despite the fact that
notice u/s 10(5) was issued on 17.2.1994.
Therefore, there is no material on record
which demonstrates that the State has taken
peaceful possession or forceful possession
u/s 10(6) of the Act, 1999 in fresh ceiling
proceeding in pursuance of the order dated
10.2.1993 of the competent authority. A
detailed procedure has been provided under
the U.P. Urban Land Ceiling (Taking of
Possession, Payment of Amount and Allide
5 All. Amrita Bharti Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
765
Matters)
Direction,
1983
for
taking
possession, but no such procedure, as
prescribed
in
Direction,
1983,
was
followed.

8. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in State of
U.P. vs. Hari Ram, reported in (2013) 4
SCC 280, has clearly observed that unless
the actual possession is taken, the land will
not be vested in the State and on the
enforcement of Act, 1999 proceeding under
the Ceiling Act will abate and the tenure
holder is entitled to retain the land which
was declared surplus.

9. In view of the above fact, we are of
the considered view that the State has not
brought on record any material to show that
the actual possession was taken from the
petitioner in pursuance of the fresh ceiling
proceeding initiated on the basis of order
dated 10.2.1993 of the competent authority,
hence the ceiling proceeding regarding the
land of the petitioners in Gata Nos. 1631,
1659, 1660 of total area 2971.7566 sq. meters
in Village Dhandhupura Tajganj, Tehsil
Sadar, District Agra has abated under the Act,
1999. The petitioners are entitled to retain the
land and respondents are directed not to
interfere in the possession of the above land.

10. With the aforesaid direction, the
petition is allowed.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 765
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J.

Writ-C No. 35545 of 2022

Amrita Bharti ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Gautam Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Suresh Singh, Sri Manish Goyal
(Sr. Advocate)

(A) Civil Law - The U.P. Industrial Area
Development
Act,
1976
-
Sections
2(b),2(d),3,6,9,12-A,12-B,18 & 19 - The
U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 - The United
Provinces Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 , The
Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and
Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961, The U.P.
Land Revenue Act, 1901, The Constitution
of India - Article 14,21,31A,243(d),243Q(1) - When objective of the two
legislations is different and they operate
in different fields -there is no question of
any conflict. (Para - 17)

(B) Civil Law - The U.P. Industrial Area
Development Act, 1976 - Section 10 -
merely regulates the development and
constructions in the area declared as
''industrial development area' - does not
impose
any
permanent restriction in
raising constructions - Section 10 does not
prevent
individuals
from
raising
construction
in
areas
under
the
Authority's
jurisdiction
-
regulates
construction activity through regulatory
steps to ensure proper planning and public
interest - Section 19 - specific provisions
for
obtaining
permission
for
raising
construction, not banning development or
construction activity.(Para - 4,19)

Petitioner (co-owner of residential plot) -
illegally subdivided and raised constructions -
violating Section 10 of Act - Constructions
ordered to be removed within 15 days - causing
Authority's cost and expense - Petitioner claims
- illegal demolition order - violates Nagar
Panchayat's powers and property rights -
Constitutional validity - under challenge -
Section 10 of U.P. Industrial Area Development
Act, 1976, notifications issued under constitution
, notifications issued by State Government and