# Satish Kewlani v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 1436
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-05-17
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 8724 of 2013
- **Bench:** Rajan Roy, Manish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satish-kewlani-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50116
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article - 226, 252(2), - Urban Land
Ceiling and Regulations Act, 1976
-
Sections 8(3), 10(1), 10(3), 10(4), 10(5),
10(6) & 35 - Urban Land( Ceiling and
Regulations) Repeal Act, 1999 - Sections
3, 4 & 5(2) - Writ Petition - seeking the
mandamus commanding to opposite parties not
to disturb in the peaceful possession - earlier, in
the year 1990 - against Original Tenure holder
of the said Gata in question a Notice u/s 8(3)
was issued by the respondent authorities -
which was never responded - resulted, said
Gata was declared surplus land - notification u/s
10(3) & 10(5) was published - in year 1996 said
land was transferred to LDA u/s 10(6) of the
Act, 1976 - after death of original tenure holder,
his daughter being successor executed a saledeed in year 2000 in favour of petitioner - the
old Act, 1976 was replaced by new Act, 1999 -
court finds that, possession of tenure holder is
still continue and actual physical possession of
the land was never taken by the St., than all
proceedings under the repealed Act, 1976 and
orders therein are stood abated when the Act,
1999 was came into force - hence, petitioner is
entitled to the benefit of section 3 & 4 of the
Act, 1999 - consequently, writ petition is
allowed - direction issued, for deletion of
endorsement regarding surplus land in revenue
record and restore the name of the petitioner,
accordingly.
Para - (13, 18, 22, 23, 24)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:
5 All. Satish Kewlani Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1437

## Text

1436 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
instant case. The course allotment is locked
only when a candidate makes a request to
the University that he does not want any
change in the course allotted to him
initially and wants to be excluded from the
rearrangement process. Admittedly, the
candidate had not opted for locking of his
admission in B.A. (Hons.) Sociology and
hence could not be have been excluded
from the upward arrangement process.

9. The refusal of the University to
admit the petitioner in the B.A. (Hons.)
Economics Course in the category of paid
seats was arbitrary and illegal.

10. In the wake of the preceding
discussion this Court finds that the
petitioner was entitled to the B.A. (Hons.)
Economics Course in the category of paid
seats.

11. A writ in the nature of mandamus
is issued commanding the respondent
University
to
forthwith
process
his
candidature for admission to the B.A.
(Hons) Economics course.

12. In view of the fact that the
petitioner's admission to the said course
was delayed by the fault of the University,
the University shall take all measures
including extra classes, holding of special
exams and necessary support so that the
petitioner does not lose an academic year.

13. The writ petition is allowed.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1436
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

Writ-C No. 8724 of 2013

Satish Kewlani ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ved Prakash, Sri Dinesh Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article - 226, 252(2), - Urban Land
Ceiling and Regulations Act, 1976
-
Sections 8(3), 10(1), 10(3), 10(4), 10(5),
10(6) & 35 - Urban Land( Ceiling and
Regulations) Repeal Act, 1999 - Sections
3, 4 & 5(2) - Writ Petition - seeking the
mandamus commanding to opposite parties not
to disturb in the peaceful possession - earlier, in
the year 1990 - against Original Tenure holder
of the said Gata in question a Notice u/s 8(3)
was issued by the respondent authorities -
which was never responded - resulted, said
Gata was declared surplus land - notification u/s
10(3) & 10(5) was published - in year 1996 said
land was transferred to LDA u/s 10(6) of the
Act, 1976 - after death of original tenure holder,
his daughter being successor executed a saledeed in year 2000 in favour of petitioner - the
old Act, 1976 was replaced by new Act, 1999 -
court finds that, possession of tenure holder is
still continue and actual physical possession of
the land was never taken by the St., than all
proceedings under the repealed Act, 1976 and
orders therein are stood abated when the Act,
1999 was came into force - hence, petitioner is
entitled to the benefit of section 3 & 4 of the
Act, 1999 - consequently, writ petition is
allowed - direction issued, for deletion of
endorsement regarding surplus land in revenue
record and restore the name of the petitioner,
accordingly.
Para - (13, 18, 22, 23, 24)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:
5 All. Satish Kewlani Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1437
1. St. of U.P. Vs Hari Ram, (2013) 4 SCC 280,

2. Yasin Vs St. of U.P. & ors., (2014) 4 ADJ 305
(DB),

3. Babu & ors. Vs St. of U.P. thru. Secy., Urban
Land Ceiling, Lucknow & ors. (Misc. Bench No.
1960 of 2019)

4. St. of U.P. & ors. Vs Babu & ors. (S.L.P. No.
4160/2022 decided Dt. 14.03.2022),

5. St. of U.P. & anr. Vs Adarsh Seva Sahkari
Samiti Ltd., (2016) 12 SCC 493,

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J.
&
Hon'ble Manish Kumar, J.)

1. Heard.

2. The present writ petition has been
preferred with the following main prayers:-

"i) Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of Mandamus thereby
commanding the opposite parties not to
disturb the peaceful possession of the
petitioner over Gata No. 72, Khata No.
178, area 1606.13 sq. mtrs. situated at
village Chandan, Pargana, Tehsil and
District Lucknow.

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus directing the opposite
parties to restore the entries in the name of
the petitioner over Gata No. 72, Khata No.
178, area 1606.13 sq. mtrs. situated at
Village Chandan, Pargana, Tehsil and
District Lucknow, as it was prior to
4.2.2008."

3. Brief facts of the case are that Gata
No. 72 (1606.13 sq. mtrs.) situated at
village Chandan, Pargana, Tehsil and
District Lucknow was recorded in the name
of Sukkha, the original tenure holder who
was its Bhumidhar with transferable rights.
A notice under Section 8(3) of the Urban
Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976
(hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1976') was
issued in respect of aforesaid land and as
per the opposite parties Sukkha did not
respond, therefore, the said land measuring
1606.13 sq. mtrs. was declared surplus. On
09.09.1978, a notification under Section
10(1) of the Act, 1976 was issued.
Thereafter on 12.05.1990, notification
under Section 10(3) of the Act, 1976 was
published.
Sukkha
was
directed
to
handover possession of the said land on
24.01.1991, as claimed by the opposite
parties, in view of Section 10(5) of the Act,
1976. Thereafter, the said land, as per
opposite
parties,
was
transferred
to
Lucknow Development Authority in view
of Government Order dated 11.12.1996 and
Section 10(6) of the Act, 1976, though the
exact date of this transfer has not been
mentioned. In fact in the counter affidavit
of the State though it is mentioned that
Sukkha was asked to handover possession
of the land, but it is nowhere mentioned
that he did handover or surrender his
possession
to
the
State
authorities
voluntarily or that it was forcibly taken. No
proof of such handover or taking over of
possession has been annexed by the
opposite parties in the counter affidavit.
Only a copy of notice under Section 10(5)
of the Act, 1976 has been annexed which
by itself does not prove handing over or
taking over of actual possession. On
11.03.1999, the Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Repeal Ordinance, 1999 was
issued which was adopted by the State
Legislature of U.P. under Article 252(2) of
the Constitution of India on 18.03.1999.
This Ordinance was replaced by the Urban
Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act,
1999 (Act No. 5 of 1999) (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Repeal Act, 1999') by
1438 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which the Act, 1976 was repealed. As per
Section
5(2)
of
this
Act,
1999,
notwithstanding repeal of the Ordinance of
1999, anything done or action taken under
the said Ordinance shall be deemed to have
been done or taken under the corresponding
provisions of the Act, therefore, the
adoption dated 18.03.1999 by State of U.P.
holds good for the Act, 1999 also.

4. Before referring to the provision of
Repeal Act, 1999, it is relevant to mention
that at some point of time Sukkha died and
his daughter succeeded him with regard to
his land and after coming into force of the
Repeal Act, 1999, she executed a sale- deed
in favour of the petitioner on 18.09.2000 as
per the supplementary affidavit of the
petitioner dated 11.02.2020, copy of which
was served on the State, contents of which
have not been denied by it. Copy of saledeed is also annexed with it. Based on the
said sale deed, petitioner was recorded in
the revenue records as its Bhumidhar with
transferable rights. Copy of khatauni
pertaining to Gata No. 72 is annexed as
Annexure no. 1 to the petition. By then, the
State was not even recorded in respect of
the said land and it was so recorded only on
04.02.2008. Sections 3 & 4 of the Repeal
Act, 1999 read as under:-

"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
authorised 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 subsection (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 authorised 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.

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 & 14 of the principal
Act in so far 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."

5. These provisions of the Repeal Act,
1999 were considered by Hon'ble the
5 All. Satish Kewlani Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1439
Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P.
vs Hari Ram [(2013) 4 SCC 280] and it was
inter alia held that vesting under Sub
Section (3) of Section 10 meant vesting of
title absolutely and not possession, though
nothing stands in the way of a person
voluntarily
surrendering
or
delivering
possession. It further held that it was
mandatory for the State to issue a notice
under Section 10 (5) of the Act, 1976
directing the petitioner/land holder to
deliver possession to the State, failing
which it was mandatory for the State to
take forceful possession under Section
10(6) of the Act, 1976. It went on to hold
as under:-

"42. 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 subsection (6) of Section 10. On failure to
establish any of those situations, the land
owner or holder can claim the benefit of
Section 4 of the Repeal Act. The State
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 4 of the Repeal Act."

6. Thus, vesting of land under Section
10(3) of the Act, 1976 does not mean actual
physical possession and such vesting also
does not by itself render the possession of
tenure holder illegal. Thus the crux of the
issue is whether in the case at hand,
actual/de facto possession was taken or
voluntarily given prior to coming into force
of Repeal Act, 1999 or not. If not, then the
benefit of the Repeal Act will be available
to the petitioner. If it has been taken, then it
will not be available.

7. Now the mode/procedure for taking
possession was discussed by this Court in
the case of Yasin vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
[(2014) 4 ADJ 305 (DB)]. Paragraphs 15 &
16 of the said judgment reads as under:-

"15. In the light of the aforesaid,
the Court has to see as to whether actual
physical possession had been taken by the
State or not either under Sections 10(5) or
10(6) of the Act. The procedure for taking
possession has been provided under the
Directions of 1983, which has been issued
by the State Government while exercising
its power under Section 35 of the Act.
Paragraph 3 of the Directions is extracted
hereunder:

'3.
Procedure
for
taking
possession of vacant land in excess of
Ceiling
Limit
.--(1)
The
Competent
Authority will maintain a register in Form
No. ULC -1 for each case regarding which
notification under sub-section (3) of
Section 10 of the Act is published in the
gazette.

(2) An order in Form No. ULC-II
will be sent to each landholder as
prescribed under sub-section (5) of Section
10 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 subsection (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.
1440 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ULC-I. The Competent Authority shall, in
token of verification of the entries, put his
signature in Column II of Form No. ULC/1
and Column 10 of Form No. ULC-III.'

16. From the aforesaid, it is clear
that Competent Authority is required to
maintain a register under U.L.C.-I, which
is required to indicate the date of notice
issued under Section 10(5) of the Act and
the date of service of notice as well as the
date of taking the possession and the
signature of the Competent Authority.
Form no. U.L.C.-II is with regard to
issuance of notice under Section 10(5). The
format indicates that in addition to the
notice that had to be sent to the tenure
holder an intimation is also required to be
sent to the Collector with a request to take
possession under sub-section (6) of Section
10 of the Act. Form no. U.L.C.-III is a
register for the land of which possession
has been taken under Sections 10(5) or
10(6) of the Act. The Competent Authority
is also required to place his signature
endorsing the date of taking possession."

8. The directions of 1983 referred in
the above quoted judgment have been
issued under Section 35 of the Act, 1976.

9. The Division Bench in the case of
Yasin (supra) after considering various
decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court on the
mode of possession also observed that
normal mode of taking possession is
drafting a panchnama in the presence of
panchas and taking possession and giving
delivery of possession to the beneficiaries,
if any.

10. There is no such pleading in the
counter affidavit nor any documents
annexed to demonstrate the taking over of
possession in terms of the aforesaid
procedure prescribed. As already stated, in
fact, even bereft of the aforesaid procedure,
there is no such averment in the counter
affidavit of the State that de facto/actual
possession was taken over by it of the land
in question. It is also not the case that the
actual possession was voluntarily delivered
by the tenure holder.

11. From perusal of the प्रपत्र संख्या न० िू ०
अ ० सी ० -दो issued under Section 10 (5) of
the Act, it shows the name of Sukkha the
original tenure holder but nothing has been
found from the record that at any point of
time, either the original tenure holder or the
petitioner
has
ever
given
physical
possession voluntarily as per Section 10 (5)
of the Act. The counter affidavit also does
not say that actual physical possession was
handed over to Lucknow Development
Authority and it has made any construction
on it. There is no documentary proof at all
in the light of Division Bench judgments of
this Court in the cases of Yasin (supra) and
Babu and Ors. vs. State of U.P. thru.
Secy., Urban Land Ceiling, Lucknow &
Ors. (Misc. Bench No. 1960 of 2019) to
show voluntary surrender of possession by
original tenure holder or forcible de facto
possession by the State.

12. The Competent Authority is
required to maintain a register under
U.L.C.-I, which is required to indicate the
date of notice issued under Section 10(5) of
the Act, 1976 and the date of service of
notice as well as the date of taking the
possession and the signature of the
Competent Authority. Form No. U.L.C.-II
is with regard to issuance of notice under
Section 10 (5). The format indicates that in
addition to the notice that had to be sent to
the tenure holder, an intimation is also
required to be sent to the Collector with a
request to take possession under sub-
5 All. Satish Kewlani Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1441
Section (6) of Section 10 of the Act. Form
No. U.L.C. -III is a register for the land of
which possession has been taken under
Section 10 (5) or 10 (6) of the Act, 1976.
The Competent Authority is also required
to place his signature endorsing the date of
taking consideration. In this case, no such
record is available which could help the
opposite parties. No memo of possession is
annexed to the counter affidavit. Even the
date of taking the possession has not been
mentioned in the counter affidavit.

13. The petitioner has specifically
pleaded in para 6 of the writ petition that
possession of the land was never taken. It
reads as under:-

"6. That the notification under
Section 10(1) of the Act No. 33 of 1976 was
made vide notification No.8540/3228 dated
9.9.1978 but the possession was not taken."

14. The aforesaid para has been
replied in para 24 of the counter affidavit,
which is being quoted hereinbelow:-

"24. That the contents of para 6
of the writ petition need no comment."

15. Further in para 11 of the writ
petition, he has mentioned that he continues
to be in actual and physical possession of
the land. It reads as under:-

"11.
That
the
petitioner
respectfully submits that after the execution
of the sale deed executed by opposite party
No. 4 in favour of the petitioner his name
was mutated in the revenue records and he
is continuing in actual and physical
possession of the land in question."

16. This has been replied by the State
in para 26, as under:-

" That the contents of para 11 of
the writ petition as stated are denied in
view
of
the
submissions
made
hereinabove."

17. On a perusal of the other
paragraphs of the counter affidavit, we do
not find any pleading and proof referred in
its support about actual physical possession
having been delivered or taken to/by State
authorities. In fact, para 24 of the counter
affidavit accepts the case of the petitioner.
The possession and transfer, which have
been referred in the counter affidavit of the
State, are only on paper. The original
records in this regard which were produced
before us also do not contain any proof of
such actual possession having been taken
or delivered voluntarily.

18. Possession of the tenure holder or
petitioner cannot be termed as illegal
merely because of vesting of the land in the
State in view of the decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Hari Ram
(supra), as has already been held in the case
of Babu & Ors. (supra). In view of the
above, the land owner or holder can claim
benefit of Sections 3 & 4 of the Repeal Act,
1999.

19. As regards, the contention of Sri
Khare that the petition has been filed
belatedly, this is also irrelevant as the
petitioner is still in possession of the land
and its possession was never actually
taken by the State. Moreover, the petition
was filed after petitioner come to know
about the entry made on 04.02.2008 in
the records, illegally. This aspect has also
been considered by a Division Bench
judgment of this Court in the case of
Babu and Ors. (supra). The relevant
extract of the said judgment is quoted
hereinbelow:
1442 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"16. As regards the contentions of
Sri Sarin that the challenge was delayed,
we are of the opinion that as the actual
physical possession still continues with the
petitioners and it was not taken by the
State, there is no question of delay in
seeking the relief as aforesaid. The decision
relied by Sri Sarin, which are reported in
2015 (5) SCC 321 State of Assam Versus
Bhaskar Jyoti Sharma and others, 2017 (7)
ADJ 362 Dhani Ram Verus State of U.P.
and others and 2015 (7) ADJ 630 Shiv Ram
Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others do not
apply to the facts of the case. In the case of
Bhaskar Jyoti (supra) the fact was that the
actual physical possession had been taken
over from the erstwhile land owner on
07.12.1991, therefore in this context the
plea
raised
about
taking
over
the
possession illegally was held to be highly
belated. Here the facts are very different.
The possession still continues with the
petitioners and there is nothing to show
that it was taken by the State. As regards
the case of Shiv Ram Singh (supra) here
also the allegation was of dispossession
from land without due notice under Section
10(5) and as it was a belated plea,
therefore, the same was not acceptable. In
the case of Dhani Ram (supra) a
notification under Section 4 of the Act,
1976 was challenged belatedly, which is
not the case here. Therefore, none of these
decisions supports the case of the opposite
parties."

20. Against the judgment dated
30.07.2021 in the case of Babu & Others
(supra), an S.L.P. bearing No. 4160/2022
was preferred by the State of U.P. & Ors.
vs. Babu and Ors., which was dismissed by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide its order
dated 14.03.2022.

21. As there is nothing on record to
establish voluntary surrender of land by
Sukkha under Section 10(5) or forcible
actual/de facto possession by the State of
U.P. under Section 10(6) therefore, the
Repeal Act, 1999 is clearly attracted and
the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of
Sections 3 and 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999.

22. Once we have arrived at the
conclusion that actual physical possession
was never taken by the State then in view
of the Repeal Act, 1999, all proceedings
under the repealed Act, 1976 and orders
passed
therein
stood
abated
as
on
18.03.1999/22.03.1999 when the Act, 1999
came into force. The Act, 1976 itself
ceased to be operative from the said date,
therefore, it cannot be said that the sale of
the land by daughter of Sukkha in favour of
petitioner on 18.09.2000 is hit by any
provisions of the Act, 1976, such as,
Section 10(4).

23. The contention of Sri Khare in
this regard based on the decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P.
and another Vs. Adarsh Seva Sahkari
Samiti Ltd.; (2016) 12 SCC 493 that
petitioner being a subsequent purchaser is
not entitled to any relief is misconceived.
In the case of Adarsh Seva Sahkari Samiti
Ltd. (supra), the sale-deed of the land
which was the subject matter of ceiling
proceedings was sold/purchased in the year
1991-92 when the Act, 1976 was in
operation and the land had vested in the
State and the sale was prohibited by
Section 10(4) of the said Act, but, in this
case, the Act, 1976 ceased to be operative
on 18.03.1999/22.03.1999 when it stood
repealed and sale of the land by the tenure
holder took place on 18.09.2000 in favour
of petitioner, therefore, it was not hit by
Section 10(4) as it was no longer in
existence. Nothing in law prohibited the
recorded tenure holder from selling the said
5 All. Shree Arya Mahila Hitakarini Mahaparishad, Varanasi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1443
land to petitioner on the said date. The
decision in Adarsh Seva Sahkari Samiti
Ltd. (supra) is not applicable to the facts of
this case.

24. In view of the above discussion,
the petition is allowed. We direct the
concerned revenue authorities to delete the
endorsement contained in the remarks
column of the Khatauni, regarding land
being surplus under the Ceiling Act, copy
of which is annexed as Annexure 1 and
restore the name of the petitioner in respect
of the land in question in the revenue
record, so far as his share therein is
concerned. This is without prejudice to the
rights of any third person who may have a
claim against the petitioner.

25. The original records which were
produced and were retained by the Court,
are returned herewith to the counsel for the
State.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1443
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ-C No. 9252 of 2023

Shree
Arya
Mahila
Hitakarini
Mahaparishad, Varanasi & Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Dr. Pradeep Kumar Mishra, Sri Shivendu
Ojha, Sri Radhakant Ojha (Sr. Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Ms. Vishakha Pande, Sri Ashok
Kumar Singh, Sri Rakesh Pande (Sr. Adv.)

Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article - 226 - Societies Registration Act,
1860 - Bye Laws of Society - 29 & 35 : -
Writ Petition - impugned order - two elections
were counted by the rival parties to the society
- writ petition - Special Appeal - remanded
back the matter before the Prescribed Authority
- who has upheld the election set up by the
respondent no. 4 and invalidated the election
claim of the petitioners - court finds that,
prescribed authority in the impugned order
considered the interplay of bye laws of the
society - namely bye laws no. 29 and 35 to
determine the legality of the meeting called
for election - court finds that, Bye law no.
35 is especial provision made for a specific
purpose, while Bye Law no. 29 is a general
provision created for all others purposes -
Good authorities in law settled the cannon of
interpretation that the special law prevails
over the general law - hence, an election
meeting shall be governed and regulated
only by Bye Laws no. 35 - and the next
issue regarding venue of the meeting was in
the teeth of the holding of the learned
Division Bench - further, there is no issue
about the electoral college - consequently,
impugned order is liable to be set aside and
matter is remitted to the Assistant Registrar,
Firms, Societies and Chits to conduct the
election in a fair and transparent manner -
writ petition is allowed - directions issued
accordingly.

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Writ - C No. 20203/2022 (Shree Arya Mahila
Hitakarini Mahaparishad & anr. Vs St. of UP &
ors.) decided on Dated 20.10.2022,

2. Special Appeal No. 692/20222 (Dr. Shashi
Kant Dixit Vs St. of UP & ors.) decided on Dated
16.12.2022.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)