# Ram Singh & Anr v. The State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 2 ILRA 1524
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-08-20
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 9071 of 2010
- **Bench:** Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, Pankaj Bhatia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-singh-anr-v-the-state-of-u-p-ors-44603
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

A. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,
1976 - Section 3 & Section 35 - Possession
not taken as per the Act - no compensation
granted - no recourse u/s 10 (6) taken -
possession not illegal and subsequent
transfer of the land to the Allahabad
Development Authority is in derogation of
the Act - Repeal Act will apply.

Writ Petition allowed (E-9)

List of Cases Cited: -

## Text

1524 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which have ramifications all over India,
where general directions are issued by this
Court, more effective implementation of the
same can, in a number of cases, be effected,
if the High Courts concerned assume the
responsibility of seeing to the enforcement
of the laws and examine the complaints,
mostly made by the local inhabitants, about
the infringement of the laws and spreading
of pollution or degradation of ecology."

40. For all the reasons mentioned
above, we are of the view that ends of justice
requires to issue directions for running and
maintaining marriage halls in the city.
Accordingly,
Prayagraj
Development
Authority is directed to get the proposed byelaws approved from the State Government
within four weeks from the date of certified
copy of this order is received by it. Till the
proposed bye-laws are approved and made
effective by the State Government, the
existing bye-laws shall continue with the
directions issued below:

(i) In respect of noise pollution caused
at marriage halls, the directions issued by
this Court in Sushil Chandra Srivastava
(supra) shall be applicable. No loudspeaker
shall be used beyond the permissible limit
under the schedule of Noise Pollution
(Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. It is
pertinent to mention that in Sushil
Chandra Srivastava (supra) the Court has
issued direction to the competent authority
not to grant permission for DJ;

(ii) If any marriage hall is found to
violate the level of noise pollution or the
judgment of this Court in Sushil Chandra
Srivastava (supra), a fine of rupees one
lakh at the first instance; five lakh at the
second instance and ten lakhs at the third
instance shall be imposed. After the third
offence the licence under Section 3 read
with Section 14 of the Sarais Act, 1867
shall
be
cancelled
by
the
District
Magistrate;

(iii) If any resident near the marriage
hall is disturbed by the excessive noise
caused by loudspeaker or other instruments
which is beyond permissible limit under the
Rules, 2000, shall inform the police at
Telephone No. 100. In case any such
complaint is made, the police shall follow
the directions of this Court in Sushil
Chandra Srivastava (supra).

(iv) Barat shall be assembled within
100 meters from marriage hall and in case
of violation, the penalty shall be imposed
upon the owner of the marriage hall.

(v) The marriage hall owner shall
furnish an affidavit in the format of
Schedule-I of Draft Policy of NCT of Delhi
extracted above; and
(vi) As regards the draft temporarily
proposed bye-laws are concerned, we do
not approve it as it is against the existing
bye-laws.

41. List this case on 6th November,
2019 before the appropriate Bench. The
Secretary, PDA shall file the progress
report on the next date.
----------

(2019)10ILR A 1524

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.08.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ-C No. 9071 of 2010

Ram Singh & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
2 All. Ram Singh & Anr. Vs The State of U.P. & Ors.
1525
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sri Kamlesh
Kumar, Sri R.N. Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Brijendra Kumar

A. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,
1976 - Section 3 & Section 35 - Possession
not taken as per the Act - no compensation
granted - no recourse u/s 10 (6) taken -
possession not illegal and subsequent
transfer of the land to the Allahabad
Development Authority is in derogation of
the Act - Repeal Act will apply.

Writ Petition allowed (E-9)

List of Cases Cited: -

1. U. P. Vs Hari Ram (2013) 4 Supreme Court
Cases 280

2. St. of Assam Vs Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma & ors.
(2015) 5 Supreme Court Cases 321

3. Shiv Ram Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
{2015(7) ADJ 630 (DB)}

4. St. of U. P. Vs Hari Ram (2013) 4 Supreme
Court Cases 280

5. St. of U. P. & anr. Vs Nek Singh (2010)
LawSuit (All) 3581

6. Ram Chandra Pandey Vs St. of U.P. through
Secretary, Avas, Lucknow (2010) (82) ALR 136

7. Ram Singh & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
(2013) (120) RD 389

8. Lalji Vs St. of U.P. & 2 ors. (2018) LawSuit
(All) 1276

9. St. of U. P. & anr. Vs Vinod Kumar Tripathi &
ors. -SLP (C) No.38922 of (2013)

10. Nanku Lal Yadav Vs St. of U.P. & 3 ors. -
Writ C No.60193 of (2015).
11. Mohammad Suaif & anr. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors. -Writ C No.12696 of (2009)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.)

1. Heard Shri R.N. Tripathi, learned
counsel for the petitioners and learned
Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The petitioners in the present
petition claim to be the owners of
Bhumidhari land situate at village Chaka
Tehsil Karchhana District Allahabad and
claim to be in possession of the property
in question since for the last about 65
years.

3. The present petition seeks a writ
of mandamus declaring the proceedings
initiated against the petitioners under the
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act
No.36 of 1976 (herein after referred to as
'the Act') as abated in view of the
Repealing Act of 1999.

4. It is alleged that a notice under
Section 8 (3) of the Act was served upon
the petitioners and the father of the
petitioners have filed objections against
the said notice on 18.9.1979, however, by
means of an ex-parte order the land of the
petitioners were declared as surplus by the
competent
authority
on
30.11.1979
(Annexure-2 to the writ petition). It is
claimed that no further steps were taken
in
pursuance
to
the
order
dated
30.11.1979 and the petitioners continued
to be in actual physical possession of the
property in question.

5. The petitioners claimed that the
petitioners are still in possession over the
said land till date and the physical
possession of the said land had not been
taken by the respondents till date and up
1526 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
till now the petitioners are cultivating the
aforesaid land as the same is an
agricultural land.

6. It is stated that the Uttar Pradesh
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,
1976 enacted by the Parliament in
exercise of its legislative power under
Article 252 (1) of the Constitution of
India and came into force in U.P. by
adopting aforesaid act under Article
252(2) of the Constitution of India on
17.6.1976. Thereafter Parliament passed a
Repeal Act No.15 of 1999 on 22.3.1999
and same is adopted by the state of U.P.
by Repeal Act no.15 of 1999 which came
into force in Uttar Pradesh by Repeal Act
no. 15 of 1999 which came into force in
Uttar Pradesh on 31.3.1999.

7. It is also alleged in the writ petition
that no compensation was aver paid or
accepted by the petitioners under the
Ceiling Act. It is also stated that the name of
the petitioners' father was entered in the
revenue record against Gata Nos. 165, 533,
561 & 196 and after the death of the father
of the petitioners, the names of the
petitioners were duly recorded vide order
dated 14.6.2002. It is also brought on record
that the petitioners continued to be in
physical possession of the property in
question and that the petitioners had
deposited the Tube well charges regarding
the land in question for cultivation for the
years 2008 and 2009. In view of the factual
averments made as well as relying upon the
judgement of the Supreme Court in the case
of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Hari Ram
(2013) 4 Supreme Court Cases 280, the
petitioners claim that they are entitled to
reliefs claimed in the writ petition.

8. In the counter affidavit filed by
the State Government, no documents have
been annexed to demonstrate as to how
the possession was taken, the only
defence taken is that the name of the State
Government has been mutated in the
revenue records and that the writ petition
filed after several years, is liable to be
dismissed.

On 13.3.2019, this Court had passed
the following order:-

"Learned Standing Counsel has
produced the original record. We find
that the petitioners have annexed a notice
dated 5.2.1986 under Section 10(5) of the
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,
1976 issued to the tenure holder/
petitioner which shows that two officers
have taken possession on behalf of the
State and the Prescribed Authority. There
is no explanation of the tenure holder to
indicate that he has given possession to
the aforesaid authority. In the original
record same document is on the record
hence we accept annexure-2 as a correct
document.

We have carefully perused the
original record and we find that no
document pertains to the proceeding
under Section 10(6) of the Act, 1976 has
been shown is in the original record. After
perusal, the original record is returned to
Sri Mohan Srivastava, learned Standing
Counsel.

Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the petitioners are still in
possession and he has drawn our
attention to the averments made in
paragraph nos. 4, 7 & 8 which have not
been specifically denied in the counter
affidavit.

Learned counsel for the petitioners
has placed reliance on a judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P.
v. Hari Ram, (2013) 4 SCC 280 and a
2 All. Ram Singh & Anr. Vs The State of U.P. & Ors.
1527
judgment of a Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Nanaku Lal Yadav v.
State of U.P. and others, Writ-C No.
60193 of 2015.

We have heard Sri R.N. Tripathi,
learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned standing counsel at length.

Judgement is reserved."

9.

Allahabad
Development
Authority has also filed a counter affidavit
stating that the possession was transferred
to Allahabad Development Authority vide
a Government Order dated 11.12.1996
and has relied upon the judgement of the
Supreme Court in the case of State of
Assam Vs. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma and
others (2015) 5 Supreme Court Cases 321
to contend that the writ petition is liable to
be dismissed on the ground that the
possession has already been transferred
by a Government Order, the petition is
highly belated and in view of the
judgement of the Supreme Court in the
case of State of Assam Vs. Bhaskar
Jyoti Sarma and others (supra) the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed. The
standing counsel has also relied upon the
Division Bench judgement of this Court
in the case of Shiv Ram Singh Vs. State
of U.P. and others {2015(7) ADJ 630
(DB)}.

10. The counsel for the petitioners
has relied upon the judgements in the case
of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Hari Ram
(2013) 4 Supreme Court Cases 280,
State of Uttar Pradesh and another Vs.
Nek Singh 2010 LawSuit (All) 3581,
Ram Chandra Pandey Vs. State of U.P.
through Secretary, Avas, Lucknow
2010 (82) ALR 136, Ram Singh and
others Vs. State of U.P. and others 2013
(120) RD 389, Lalji Vs. State of U.P.
and 2 others 2018 LawSuit (All) 1276,
the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case rendered in Special
Leave to Appeal (C) No.38922 of 2013,
State of Uttar Pradesh and another Vs.
Vinod Kumar Tripathi & others and
the judgement passed in Writ C
No.60193 of 2015 Nanku Lal Yadav Vs.
State of U.P. and 3 others, decided on
8.3.2018.

11. The factual aspects of the
present writ petition are clear to the effect
that no possession was taken by the
Collector under Section 10 (5) of the Act,
the possession memo shown to us does
not even bear the signatures of the person
giving the possession, there is no factual
dispute that the petitioners are still in
actual physical possession of the property
in question as well as no compensation
was either paid or received by the
petitioner in the present case. It is also not
disputed that no recourse was taken to
Section 10 (6) of the Act. This Court
extensively considered a similar matter in
Writ C No.12696 of 2009 Mohammad
Suaif and another Vs. State of U.P. and
others, decided on 7.5.2019 and had duly
considered
the
judgements
of
the
Supreme Court in the case of State of
U.P. Vs. Hari Ram (Supra) followed by
this High Court in series of judgements as
well as the judgement of the Supreme
Court rendered in the case of State of
Assam Vs. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma and
others (supra) this Court after considering
the
entire
judgements
framed
the
following questions:-

i) whether the possession taken by
the State Government can be termed as a
valid possession in accordance with law
provided under the Act No.33 of 1976
read with the Uttar Pradesh Urban Land
Ceiling (Taking of Possession, Payment
1528 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of
Amount
and
Allied
Matters)
Directions, 1983 ?

ii) whether the possession not taken
inconsonance with the provisions of the
Act and Directions can be termed to be a
legal possession ?

iii) whether the subsequent transfer
of the land to Allahabad Development
Authority can be a sole ground for
denying the reliefs to the petitioners ?

iv) what would be the effect of the
Repeal Act, in the event the possession is
held not to be taken in accordance with
the statutory provisions ?

v) whether the judgement of the
Supreme Court in the case of State of
Assam Vs. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma and
others (2015) 5 Supreme Court Cases 321
can be applied to the cases arising in the
State of Uttar Pradesh ?

12.

This
Court
after
duly
considering the judgements and the
provisions of law recorded that in the
State of Uttar Pradesh the position of law
was as under:-

13. The Urban (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act was promulgated as Act
No.33 of 1976 and it came into force on
17.2.1976. The object of the Act was to
provide for imposition of ceiling of vacant
land in urban conglomeration and for
acquisition of such lands which were held
in excess of the ceiling limits.

14. In terms of Act No.33 of 1976
by virtue of powers conferred under
Section 35 of the said Act. The State of
Uttar Pradesh issued specific directions
prescribing
the
manner
for
taking
possession known as the Uttar Pradesh
Urban
Land
Ceiling
(Taking
of
Possession, Payment of Amount and
Allied Matters) Directions, 1983.

15. The Act No.33 of 1976 was
repealed by Section 2 of the Repeal Act,
1999 and the said Repeal Act was adopted
in the State of Uttar Pradesh on
18.3.1999. By virtue of Section 3 of the
Repeal Act, savings clause was provided,
Section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999 is being
quoted herein below:-

"Section 3 in The Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act,
1999
3. Saving.--

(1) The repeal of the principal Act
shall not affect--

(a) the vesting of any vacant land
under sub-section (3) of Section 10,
possession of which has been taken over the
State Government or any person duly
authorized by the State Government in this
behalf or by the competent authority;

(b) the validity of any order granting
exemption under sub-section (1) of Section 20
or
any
action
taken
thereunder,
notwithstanding any judgment of any court to
the contrary;

(c) any payment made to the State
Government as a condition for granting
exemption under sub-section (1) of Section 20.

(2) Where--

(a) any land is deemed to have vested in
the State Government under sub-section (3)
of Section 10 of the principal Act but
possession of which has not been taken over
by the State Government or any person duly
authorized by the State Government in this
behalf or by the competent authority; and

(b) any amount has been paid by the
State Government with respect to such
land then, such land shall not be restored
unless the amount paid, if any, has been
refunded to the State Government."

16. The relevant directions issued
under Section 35 of the Act No.33 of
2 All. Ram Singh & Anr. Vs The State of U.P. & Ors.
1529
1976 known as The Uttar Pradesh Urban
Land Ceiling (Taking of Possession
payment of amount and Allied Matters)
Directions, 1983 (Directions issued by the
State Government under Section 35 of the
Act, 1976) are quoted herein below:-

The Uttar Pradesh Urban Land Ceiling
(Taking of Possession payment of amount and
Allied Matters) Directions, 1983 (Directions
issued by the State Government under Section
35 of the Act, 1976):

"In exercise of the powers under Section
35 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act, 1976 (Act No.33 of 1976),
the governor is pleased to issue the following
directions relating to the powers and duties of
the Competent Authority in respect of amount
referred to in Section 11 of the aforesaid Act
to the person or persons entitled thereto:

1.
Short
title,
application
and
Commencement -These directions may be
called the Uttar Pradesh Urban Land
Ceiling (Taking of Possession Payment of
Amount and Allied Matters Directions,
1983).

2. The provisions contained in this
direction shall be subjected to the
provisions of any directions or rules or
orders issued by the Central Government
with such directions or rules or orders.

3. They shall come into force with
effect from the date of publication in the
Gazette.

2. Definitions:-

3. Procedure for taking possession of
vacant Land in excess of Ceiling Limit-(1)
The Competent Authority will maintain a
register in From No.ULC -1 for each case
regarding which notification under subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Act is
published in the Gazette.

4. (2) an order in Form No.ULC-II
will be sent to each land holder as
prescribed under sub-section (5) of
Section 109 of the Act and the date of issue
and service of the order will be entered in
Column 8 of Form No.ULC-1.

(3) On possession of the excess vacant
land being taken in accordance with the
provisions of sub-section (5) or sub-section
(6) of Section 10 of the Act, entries will be
made in a register in Form ULC-III and
also in Column 9 of the Form No.ULC-1.
The Competent Authority shall in token of
verification of the entries, put his signatures
in column 11 of Form No.ULC-1 and
Column 10 of Form No.ULC-III.

Form No. ULC-1 Register of Notice
u/s 10-(3) and 10(5)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Serial
No. of
Register
of
Receipt
Serial
No. of
Register
of
Taking
possessi
-on
Ca
se
nu
mb
er
Da
te
of
No
tifi
cat
ion
u/s
10
(3)
Land
to be
acqui
red
Date of
taking
over
possessi
on
Re
mar
ks
Signat
ure of
compe
tent
Autho
rity

Form No. ULC-II

Notice order u/s 10(5) (See clause
(2) of Direction (3)

In the Court of Competent Authority

U.L.C. ...............

No..................... Date ..................

Sri/Smt...............................T/o
........................................

In exercise of the powers vested un/s
10(5) of the Urban Land Ceiling and
Regulation Act, 1976 (Act No.33 of 1976,
you are hereby informed that vide
Notification No....... dated ..... under
section 10(1) published in Uttar Pradesh
Gazette dated... following land has vested
absolutely in the State free from all
1530 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
encumbrances
as
a
consequence
Notification u/s 10(3) published in Uttar
Pradesh Gazette dated ....... Notification
No......... dated .... With effect from ..........
you are hereby ordered to surrender or
deliver the possession of the land to the
Collector of the District Authorised in this
behalf under Notification No.324/II-27-
U.C.77
dated
February
9,
1977,
published in the gazette, dated March 12,
1977, within thirty days from the date of
receipt of this order otherwise action
under sub-section (6) of Section 10 of the
Act will follow.

Description of Vacant Land

Locat
ion
Khasra
number
identification
Area
Remarks
1
2
3
4

Competent Authority

...............................

...............................

Dated...................

Copy forwarded to the Collector
............ with the request that action for
immediate taking over of the possession
of the above detailed surplus land and its
proper maintenance may, kindly be taken
an intimation be given to the undersigned
along with copy of certificate to verify.

Competent Authority ................

.............."

17. The State Government issued a
Government Order No. 2228@vkB&6&15&
124 ;wlh@13 dated 29th September, 2015
accepting the judgement of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of
Uttar Pradesh Vs. Hari Ram (Supra)
and necessary directions were issued to
take steps for compliance and decision in
terms of the directions in the case of State
of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Hari Ram (Supra).
Copy of the said Government Order dated
29.9.2015 is quoted herein below:-

la[;k & 2228@vkB&6&15&124 ;wlh@13
izs"kd]

iu/kkjh ;kno

lfpo]

mRrj izns'k 'kkluA
lsok es]

ftykf/kdkjh]

xksj[kiqj]
okjk.klh]
bykgkckn]
y[kuÅ]
dkuiqj

vkxjk] esjB] eqjknkckn] vyhsx<] cjsyh]
lgkjuiqjA

vkokl ,oa 'kgjh fu;kstu vuqHkkx&6 y[kuÅ
% fnukad 29 flrEcj 2015

fo"k; uxj Hkwfe 1⁄4vf/kdre lhek ,oa fofu;eu1⁄2
fujlu vf/kfu;e] 1999 rrdze eas fuxZr 'kklukns'k
rFkk ek0 mPpre U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; fnukad 11-032013 ds lEcU/k easaA
 &&&&&&

egksn;]

mi;qDZr fo"k; ij eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ'k
gqvk
gS
fd
Hkkjr
ljdkj
ds
vf/kfu;e
la[;k&15@1999 fnukad 18-03-1999 }kjk uxj Hkwfe
1⁄4vf/kdre lhek ,oa fofu;eu1⁄2 vf/kfu;e 1976 dks
fujflr djrs gq, uxj Hkwfe 1⁄4vf/kdre lhek ,oa
fofu;eu1⁄2 fujlu vf/kfu;e 1999 izk[;kfir fd;k
x;k ftlds dze esa 'kklukns'k la[;k& 502@9& u0
Hkw0&99&21;w0 lh0@99] fnaukad 31-03-1999 }kjk
mDr fujlu vf/kfu;e dks mRrj izns'k jkT; esa
vaxhd`r fd;k x;kA fujlu vf/kfu;e 1999 dh
/kkjk&3 es ;g izkfo/kku gS fd ewy vf/kfu;e dk
fujlu fuEufyf[kr dks izHkkfor ugha djsxk&

1⁄411⁄2 1⁄4d1⁄2 /kkjk&10 dh mi/kkjk& 1⁄431⁄2 ds v/khu
,slh fjDr Hkwfe dk fufgr gksuk] ftldk dCtk jkT;
2 All. Ram Singh & Anr. Vs The State of U.P. & Ors.
1531
ljdkj ;k jkT; ljdkj }kjk bl fufeRr lE;d
:i ls vf/kd`rd fdlh O;fDr ;k l{ke izkf/kdkjh us
ys fy;k gSA

1⁄4[k1⁄2 /kkjk& 20 dh mi/kkjk& 1⁄411⁄2 ds v/khu NwV
nsus laca/kh fdlh vkns'k ;k mlds v/khu dh x;h
fdlh dk;Zokgh dh fdlh U;k;ky; ds fdlh fu.kZ;
esa mlds foL) fdlh ckr ds gksrs gq, Hkh
fof/kekU;rk%

1⁄4x1⁄2 /kkjk& 20 dh mi/kkjk& 1⁄411⁄2 ds v/khu
iznku dh x;h NwV dh 'krZ ds :i es jkT; ljdkj
dks fd;k x;k dksbZ lank;%

1⁄421⁄2 tgka&

1⁄4d1⁄2 ewy vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&10 dh mi/kkjk
1⁄431⁄2 ds v/khu fdlh Hkwfe dks jkT; ljdkj es fufgr
gksuk ekuh x;h gS fdUrq ftldk dCtk jkT; ljdkj
;k jkT; ljdkj }kjk bl fufeRr lE;d :i ls
izkf/kd`r fdlh O;fDr ;k l{ke izkf/kdkjh }kjk ugh
fy;k x;k % vkSj

1⁄4x1⁄2 ,slh fdlh Hkwfe ds ckcr ftlds fy,
jkT; ljdkj }kjk fdlh jde dk lank; dj fn;k
x;k gS rc rd izR;kofrZr ugh dh tk; vkSj tc
rd fd jkT; ljdkj dks lank; dh x;h jde dk
;fn dksbZ gks] izfrnk; ugh dj fn;k tkrkA

mDr
ds
dze
es
'kklukns'k
la[;k&777@9u0Hkw0&135 ;w0 lh0@99 fnukad 0902-2000] 'kklukns'k la[;k &1623@9& u0Hkw0&2000
fnukad
09-08-2000
,oa
'kklukns'k
la[;k&
190@9&vk&6& 2001 fnukad 24-01-2001 fuxZr
fd;s x;s ftles eq[; :i ls ;g O;oLFkk dh xbZ
fd ewy vf/kfu;e /kkjk &8 1⁄441⁄2 ds vUrxZr tks Hkwfe
fjDr ?kksf"kr dh xbZ Fkh vkSj /kkjk&10 1⁄431⁄2 ds
vUrxZr jkT; es fufgr gks pqdh Fkh ,oa /kkjk&10 1⁄451⁄2
dh dk;Zokgh dk vkns'k gks pqdk Fkk ijUrq bl Hkwfe
ij jkT; ljdkj dk dCtk izkIr ugh gks ldk Fkk]
,slh Hkwfe ds lEcU/k es ewy Hkw/kkjd dks vnk dh xbZ
/kujkf'k Hkw/kkjd }kjk okil djus ij Hkwfe ewy
Hkw/kkjd dks izR;kofrZr dh tk ldrh gS fdUrq vnk
dh xbZ /kujkf'k Hkw& /kkjd }kjk okil u djus dh
n'kk esa Hkwfe ij dCtk fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k es fof/k
vuqlkj vfxze dk;Zokgh vey es yk;h tk;A ;g Hkh
O;oLFkk dh xbZ fd ftl Hkwfe ds lEcU/k es /kkjk&10
1⁄451⁄2 dh dk;Zokgh ds mijkUr /kkjk&10 1⁄461⁄2 dh
dk;Zokgh iwoZ gks pqdh gS vkSj Hkwfe ij jkT; ljdkj
}kjk dCtk fy;k tk pqdk gS og ljIyl Hkwfe
vfUre :i ls jkT; ljdkj esa fufgr ekuh tk;sxhA

3- uxj Hkwfe lhekjksi.k& xksj[kiqj] okjk.klh]
bykgkckn] y[kuÅ] dkuiqj] vkxjk] esjB] eqjknkckn]
vyhsx<] cjsyh] lgkjuiqj es yfEcr vcZu lhfyax
izdj.kksa dk leqfpr :i ls fuLrkj.k us gksus dh
fLFkfr es Hkw&/kkjdksa@okfn;ksa }kjk ek0 mPp
U;k;ky; esa vf/kd la[;k es fjV ;kfpdk;s ;ksftr
dh tk jgh gSA uxj cLrh dk;kZy;ks }kjk fjV
;kfpdkvks es foHkkxh; i{k le;kUrxZr lk{;ks lfgr
izcyrk ls izLrqr u fd;s tkus ds dkj.k ek0
U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'kksa ds dze es 'kklu dks
vleatliw.kZ fLFkfr dk lkeuk djuk iM+ jgk gSA

4- vcZu lhfyax ds vU; izdj.k es jkT;
ljdkj }kjk ek0 mPppe U;k;ky; ubZ fnYyh es
fo'ks"k vuqefr ;kfpdk la[;k&12960@2008 mRrj
izns'k jkT; cuke gjhjke ;ksftr dh x;hA dkykUrj
es vU; tuinksa ds vcZu lhfyax ls lacf/kr izdj.kksa
es ;ksftr fo'ks"k vuqefr ;kfpdk;s mDr fo'ks"k
vuqefr ;kfpdk ls Dyc dh x;hA mDr fo'ks"k
vuqefr ;kfpdk la[;k&12960@2008 rFkk mlls
Dyc vU; fo'ks"k vuqefr ;kfpdkvks esa ikfjr ek0
mPpre U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; fnukad 11-03-2013 es
vcZu lhfyax ls lacf/kr izdj.kksa es ekxZn'kZd
fl)kUr izfrikfnr fd;s x;s gSA fu.kZ; fnukad 1103-2013 dk egRoiw.kZ ,oa fdz;kRed va'k fuEuor
gS%&

izLrj& 39

The mere vesting of the land under
sub-section (3) of Section 10 would not
confer any right on the State Government
to have de facto possession of the vacant
land unless there has been a voluntary
surrender
of
vacant
land
before
18.3.1999. State has to establish that
there has been a voluntary surrender of
vacant land or surrender and delivery of
peaceful possession under sub section (5)
of Section 10 or forceful dispossession
under sub section (6) of Section 10. On
failure to establish any of those situations,
the land owner or holder can claim the
benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal At. The
Stage Government in this appeal could
not establish any of those situations and
hence the High Court is right in holding
that the respondent is entitled to get the
benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal Act.

izLrj& 40

We, therefore, find no infirmity in the
judgment of the High Court and the
1532 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appeal is, accordingly dismissed so also
the other appeals. No documents have
been produced by the State to show that
the respondents had been dispossessed
before coming into force of the Repeal Act
and hence, the respondents are entitled to
get the benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal
Act. However, there will be no ore as to
cost.

5- uxj Hkwfe 1⁄4vf/kdre lhek ,oa fofu;eu1⁄2
fujlu vf/kfu;e] 1999 esa fofgr izkfo/kku rFkk
rRdze es fuxZr 'kklukns'k fnukad 09-02-2000]
'kklukns'k fnukad 09-08-2000 ,oa 'kklukns'k fnukad
24-01-2001 Lor% Li"V gSA fo'ks"k vuqefr ;kfpdk
la[;k&12960@2008 mRrj izns'k jkT; cuke gjhjke
rFkk mlls Dyc vU; fo'ks"k vuqefr ;kfpdkvks es
ikfjr ek0 mPpre U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; fnukad 1103-2013 esa mfYyf[kr fl)kUr@vkns'k Hkh Lor%
Li"V gSA

6- d`i;k uxj Hkwfe 1⁄4vf/kdre lhek ,oa
fofu;eu1⁄2 fujlu vf/kfu;e] 1999 rFkk mDr
'kklukns'k fnukad 09-02-2000 ] 'kkluns'k fnukad
09-08-2000 ,oa 'kklukns'k fnukad 24-01-2001 es
fofgr
O;oLFkk]
fo'ks"k
vuqefr
;kfpdk
la[;k&12960@2008 mRrj izns'k jkT; cuke gjhjke
es ikfjr ek0 mPpre U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; fnukad 1103-2013 esa mfYyf[kr fl)kUrks@vkns'kksa ds vkyksd
es yfEcr izdj.kksa es Legal ingredients ns[krs
gq, vko';d dk;Zokgh dh tk;A

Hkonh;

g0 viBuh;

1⁄4iu/kkjh ;kno1⁄2

lfpo
la[;k ,oa fnukad rnSoA

izfrfyfi fuEufyf[kr dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d
dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf"krA

1- funs'kd uxj Hkwfe lhekjksi.k ] m0 iz0 tokgj
Hkou& y[kuÅ
2- l{ke izkf/kdkjh uxj Hkwfe lhekjksi.k xksj[kiqj]
okjk.klh] bykgkckn] y[kuÅ] dkuiqj]
vkxjk] esjB] eqjknkckn] vyhsx<] cjsyh] lgkjuiqjA
3- eq[; LFkk;h vf/koDrk ek0 mPp U;k;ky;]
bykgkckn
4- xkMZ QkbZyA

vkKk ls

1⁄4dYyw izlkn f}osnh1⁄2

mi lfpoA"

18. This Court also discussed the
judgement of the Supreme Court in the
case of State of U.P. Vs. Hari Ram
(Supra) followed by the other judgements
as well as judgement in case of State of
Assam Vs. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma (supra)
and answered the questions as under:-

(i) The possession taken by the State
Government cannot be termed as a valid
possession
in
accordance
with
law
provided under the Act No.33 of 1976
read with the Uttar Pradesh Urban Land
Ceiling (Taking of Possession, Payment
of
Amount
and
Allied
Matters)
Directions, 1983.

(ii) The possession which is not
taken in consonance with the provisions
of the Act and Directions cannot be
termed to be a legal possession in
accordance with law.

(iii) Subsequent transfer of land to
Allahabad Development Authority cannot
be a ground for denying the reliefs in the
case where the possession is held to be
taken in derogation of the Act No.33 of
1976 read with the Directions, 1983.
(iv) It is held that the Repeal Act will
apply with full force and in the event the
possession is not taken in accordance with
the statutory provisions.

19. The facts of the judgement in the
case of Mohammad Suaif and another
Vs. State of U.P. & others (Supra)
decided on 7.5.2019 in Writ C No.12696
2 All. Ram Singh & Anr. Vs The State of U.P. & Ors.
1533
of 2009 squarely apply to the facts of the
present case, as in the present case the
possession has not been voluntarily given
by the petitioners, the possession memo
does
not
bear
the
signatures,
the
possession has not been taken by the
Collector or even anybody authorized by
him. The actual physical possession
continues to be with the petitioners and as
such we have no hesitation in holding that
the petitioners are entitled to the benefits
of the Repeal Act and the proceedings
initiated against the petitioners are liable
to be dropped and declared as abated.

20. This Court in the case of Nanku
Lal Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and 3
others (Supra) decided on 8.3.2018, in
Writ C No.60193 of 2015 in similar facts
and circumstances, considered the entire
gamut of laws allowed the writ petition.

21. We have also gone through the
Division Bench judgement of this Court
in the case of Shiv Ram Singh Vs. State
of U.P. and others (supra) wherein this
Court dismissed the writ petition claiming
the benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal Act.
In the said case the Division Bench had
perused the record produced by the
Standing Counsel and recorded as under :-

"In the present case, the learned
Chief Standing Counsel has produced the
original file for the perusal of the Court.
The material before the Court indicates
that the Directions of 1983 were duly
observed. Direction 3(2) envisages that
an order in Form ULC-II has to be sent to
each land holder as prescribed under
Section 10(5) and the date of issue and
service of the order is to be entered in
Column 8 of Form ULC-I. This procedure
has been complied and we may only note
that a copy of the original ULC-II register
has been produced for the perusal of the
Court.
Similarly,
direction
3(3)
contemplates that on possession of the
excess vacant land being taken in
accordance with the provisions of subsection (5) or sub-section (6) of Section
10, entries will be made in a register in
Form ULC-III. The original Form ULCIII has similarly been produced before the
Court. Entries have been made in
compliance with direction 3 both in ULCII and ULC-III registers. In the present
case, it is also clear from the record that
on 14 February 1992, a communication
was
addressed
by
the
Competent
Authority to the Tehsildar drawing
attention to an earlier letter dated 25
February 1987 and requesting that
possession of the land be taken over. A
copy of the letter dated 25 February 1987
forms part of the original record which
was produced by the learned Chief
Standing Counsel. On 25 June 1993,
possession of the land was taken over.
The possession receipt has been duly
executed by the Naib Tehsildar and by the
Kanoongo. In this view of the matter, we
are unable to accept the contention of the
petitioner that possession of the land was
not taken over prior to the date of the
Repeal Act."

22. The question whether the
Collector is empowered to delegate the
act of taking possession based on the well
settled principles of law that "Delegatees
non protest delegare" was neither raised
nor considered by this Court in the case of
Shiv Ram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and
others (supra). In the said decision even
the question of difference of procedure for
prescribing the taking over of the
possession as provided in the State of
U.P. was distinct with regards to the
provisions in the State of Assam was
1534 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
neither raised nor considered and the decision
in the case of Shiv Ram Singh Vs. State of
U.P. and others (supra) had also recorded
that the possession in the said case was taken
over prior to 18.3.1999 consequent upon
which the petitioners would not be entitled to
the benefit of the Repeal Act, the Court was
impressed with the fact that the sewerage
treatment plant was being constructed and
substantial part of it had already been
constructed which itself dis entitled the
petitioners to claim relief as they were not
serious to approach the Court within the time.
The said judgement, we say respectfully
cannot be applied to the facts of the present
case for the reasons that the question of
manner of taking possession in the State of
U.P. and State of Assam are distinct and
separate
which
question
was
neither
adjudicated nor decided by the Court.

23. The question of delegatee not
empowered to further sub-delegate was
neither raised nor considered by the Court
as also in the present case there is no such
averment in the pleadings of the State
Government to demonstrate that some
project has come-up on the land in
question, which the petitioners were
aware and failed to agitate within a
reasonable time, these three factors being
different in the present case from that of
the case of Shiv Ram Singh Vs. State of
U.P. and others (supra), we respectfully
hold that the findings recorded in the said
case are clearly distinguishable. All these
aspects which were not considered in the
case of Shiv Ram Singh Vs. State of
U.P. and others (supra) were duly raised
and considered by this Court in the case
of Mohammad Suaif and another Vs.
State of U.P. (Supra).

24. Consequently, relying upon the
judgment in the case of Mohammad
Suaif and another Vs. State of U.P.
(Supra) and judgement in case of Nanku
Lal Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and 3
others (Supra) and considering the facts
of the case, the writ petition is allowed
declaring the petitioners to be owners
with
the
direction
to
the
State
Government to correct the revenue
records accordingly.
----------

(2019)10ILR A 1534

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.08.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-C No. 6971 of 2017

U.P. S.R.T.C. Kanpur ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Mritunjay Mohan Sahai

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Sachin Dubey, Sri Surendra
Nath Dubey

A. Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 -
Section 2(b), 2(c) and 2-A - An employee
on wages in establishment covered by
the Act, 1972 and in continuous service
of minimum five years, entitled for
gratuity.

Held:- In view of the foregoing discussions, it
follows that the entitlement to receive gratuity
flows from the provisions of the P.G. Act, 1972
and an "employee" having fulfilled
the
necessary
preconditions
for
claiming
entitlement in terms thereof would be liable to
be paid the gratuity amount due to him