# Smt. Seeta Devi & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 1792
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-09-20
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 11960 of 2016
- **Bench:** Bala Krishna Narayana, Prakash Padia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-seeta-devi-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45245
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Act,
1976-Proceedings
initiated
against Petitioners under the Act,
1976-17172.14
sq.meters
land
declared surplus on the basis of
exparte survey report-appeale against
the
report-entire
proceeedings
abated-review filed-review rejectedno
further
proceedings
initiatedpossessions with the Petitioners-name
of the Petitioners is to be recorded in
place of 'State land'-W.P. allowed

Cases Cited:

## Text

1792 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2020)02ILR A1792

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.09.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Writ C No. 11960 of 2016

Smt. Seeta Devi & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Manoj Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Urban land ( Ceiling and Regulation
)
Act,
1976-Proceedings
initiated
against Petitioners under the Act,
1976-17172.14
sq.meters
land
declared surplus on the basis of
exparte survey report-appeale against
the
report-entire
proceeedings
abated-review filed-review rejectedno
further
proceedings
initiatedpossessions with the Petitioners-name
of the Petitioners is to be recorded in
place of 'State land'-W.P. allowed

Cases Cited:

1. PT. Madan Swaroop Shrotiya Public
Charitable Trust vs. State of U.P. and
Others reported in (2000) 6 SCC 325

2. Ram Chandra Pandey vs. State of
U.P.reported in 2010 (82) ALR 136

3.State of U.P. vs. Hari Ram [ JT 2013 (4)
SC 275: 2013 (4) SCC 280]

4.Gajanan Kamlya Patil vs. Addl. Collector
& Comp. Auth. & Ors. Reported in JT 2014
(3) SC 211
5.Yasin vs. State of U.P. and others
reported in 2014 (4) ADJ

(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Padia,
J.)

1. Heard Sri Manoj Yadav, learned
counsel for the petitioners and learned
Standing Counsel on behalf of all the
respondents.

2. The petitioners have preferred
the present writ petition with the
following prayers:-

"i) to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the impugned order dated
23.11.2015 passed by Sub Divisional
Magistrate,
Tehsil
Sadar,
District
Allahabad/respondent no. 4 (Annexure
No. 9 to the writ petition)

ii) to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Mandamus
directing the respondents to correct the
revenue record by deleting "State
Land" in the Revenue Record against
the name of the petitioners in respect
of the land in dispute.

iii) to issue any other and further
order or direction as this Hon'ble Court
may
deem
fit
and
proper
in
the
circumstances of the case.

iv) to award cost of the petition
to the petitioner."

3. Facts in brief as contained in the
writ petition are that the dispute relates to
Khasra No. 119 area 297.26 square meter,
102 area 1561.76 square meter, 103 area
4561.76 square meter, 121 area 2508.97
square meter, 101 area 3531.73 square
meter, 108 area 684.26 square meter, 109
area 1026.40 square meter, total area
17172.14 square meters situated in village
2 All. Smt. Seeta Devi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1793
and Pargana Meerapur, District Allahabad.
The proceedings under the provisions of
Urban Land (ceiling and Regulation) Act
1976 (hereinafter called as Act, 1976)
were initiated against the petitioners in
which an area of 17172.14 square meters
of land in dispute was declared surplus on
the basis of ex-parte survey report dated
10.10.1995. Against the aforesaid report an
appeal being appeal no. 332 of 1995 was
preferred by the predecessors of the
petitioners namely Sri Kanhee Lal as
provided under section 33 of the Act of
1976 before the District Judge, Allahabad.
The District Judge, Allahabad abated
entire proceedings relating to the land in
dispute vide order dated 17.12.2000 order
passed in the aforesaid appeal which is
reproduced below:-

^^yksd vnkyr esa iqdkj yxok;h x;hA
mHk; i{kksa ds vf/koDrkx.k mifLFkr gSA vihykFkhZ dh
vksj ls vcsVesUV ds lEcU/k esa izLrqr izkFkZuk i= ,oa
layXu 'kiFk i= dh lquokbZ dh x;hA
foi{kh@izfrmRrjnkrk dh vksj ls dksbZ vkifRr ;k
izfr'kiFk i= izLrqr ugha fd;k x;kA

Hkkjr ljdkj vjcu lhfyax 1976 dks
vcZu yS.M 1⁄4lhfyax ,.M jsxqys'ku1⁄2 fjihy ,DV 1999
dh /kkjk 4 ds vUrxZr uxj Hkwfe lhekjksi.k ewy
vf/kfu;e dks lekIr dj fn;k gS vkSj ftu oknksa ls
lEcfU/kr Hkwfe dk eqvkotk ugha fn;k x;k gS rFkk
dCtk o n[ky ugha fy;k x;k og lHkh dk;Zokgh
Loa; esa lekIr gks x;h vkSj lHkh tehusa uxj Hkwfe
lhekjksi.k ls eqDr gks x;hA rn~uqlkj ;g lEiw.kZ
dk;Zokgh vcsV fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA

vkns'k

izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA ;g
vihy vcsV gksus ds dkj.k bldh leLr dk;Zokgh
lekIr dh tkrh gSA**

4. The Saksham Adhikari, Nagar Nigam,
Seema Ropan, Allahabad preferred a review
petition against the order dated 17.12.2000, the
same numbered as Misc. Case No. 930 of
2002 before the District Judge, Allahabad.
During the pendency of the aforesaid review
petition the predecessors of the petitioners
namely Kanhee Lal Yadav died on 10.04.2003.
District Judge, Allahabad rejected the aforesaid
review
petition
vide
his
order
dated
08.08.2008. It is further stated in paragraph no.
13 of the writ petition that the possession of the
land in dispute was earlier with the
predecessors of the petitioners and after their
death the same is with the petitioners and the
possession of the land in dispute was never
taken from the petitioners.

5. It is further stated that due to
the fact that the petitioners are in
actual possession of the land in
dispute the entire proceedings stood
abated and the revenue records were
liable to be corrected accordingly. It
is further stated that against the
aforesaid order dated 08.08.2008, no
further proceedings were initiated by
the respondents and as such in view
of the provisions contained under
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)
Repeal Act, 1999, revenue entry made
in the Revenue Record in favour of
the state is liable to be expunged.
After
the
aforesaid
order
dated
08.08.2008
was
passed
various
representations were made by the
petitioners before the respondent nos.
2 to 4 to correct the entry in the
Revenue Record and delete the word
"State
Land"
from
the
revenue
records in respect of the land in
dispute. Since no orders were passed
on the aforesaid representations, a
writ petition was preferred by the
petitioners before this Court being
Writ Petition No. 68554 of 2011
(Smt. Seeta Devi and others vs. State
of U.P. and others). On the said writ
petition, following order was passed
on 06.02.2015:-
1794 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned standing counsel
appearing for the respondents.

During course of arguments,
learned counsel for the petitioners states
that he is only pressing his prayer that a
direction be issued to respondent no. 3 to
decide the representation dated 19.09.2011
filed for the purpose of mutation of their
names in the revenue record. He further
states that by order dated 17.12.2000 the
District Judge, Allahabad in Ceiling
Appeal No. 332 of 1995 allowed his
application praying for abatement of
appeal to the effect that the appeal abates
and all the proceedings with regard to the
Urban Ceiling Act shall come to an end.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further
states that even review application no. 930
of 2001 filed by the State for reviewing the
order dated 17.12.2000 was also dismissed
by the learned District Judge on 8.8.2008
and the said order has become final as the
same was not further challenged by the
State/competent authority.

In the circumstances, without
entering into the merits of the case, we
dispose
of
this
petition
directing
respondent
no.
3
to
decide
the
representation dated 19.09.2011 which is
said to be still pending before him, by a
reasoned and speaking order within a
period of three months from the date of
production of a certified copy of this order
along with copy of order dated 17.12.2000
before the respondent no. 3."

6. The aforesaid order was duly
served, in the office of opposite party.
Since no action was taken in terms of the
aforesaid judgment dated 06.02.2015 a
contempt petition was preferred by the
petitioners being Civil Misc. Contempt
Application No. 4178 of 2015. The said
contempt petition was finally disposed of
by this Court vide its order dated
17.07.2015. By the aforesaid order the
opposite party was granted three months
further time to comply with the judgment
and order dated 06.02.2015 passed in writ
C No. 68554 of 2011 (Smt. Seeta Devi)
Supra.

7. Pursuant to the aforesaid orders
now a decision has been taken by the Sub
Divisional
Magistrate,
Tehsil
Sadar
District Allahabad/respondent no. 4 on
23.11.2015. By the aforesaid decision the
claim set up by the petitioners was finally
decided and rejected by the respondent no.
4. It is stated in the aforesaid order that
letters were already written by the District
Magistrate,
Allahabad
to
the
State
Government
on
28.05.2015
and
17.11.2014 asking for the comments from
the
office
of
District
Magistrate.
Challenging
the
aforesaid
order
the
petitioners have preferred the present writ
petition.

8. It is argued by Sri Manoj Yadav,
learned counsel for the petitioners that the
order dated 23.11.2015 passed by the
respondent no. 4 is an absolutely illegal
order liable to be set aside by this Court. It
is further argued that it has already been
decided by the Apex Court in the case of
PT. Madan Swaroop Shrotiya Public
Charitable Trust vs. State of U.P. and
Others reported in (2000) 6 SCC 325 that
if possession has not been taken of the
land declared as surplus, the entire
proceedings would be abated. It is further
argued that the order dated 08.08.2008
passed by the District Judge, Allahabad in
the appeal preferred by the respondents
has became final and as such petitioners
became entitled for their names being
recorded in the revenue records in place of
"State Land". It is further argued that in
2 All. Smt. Seeta Devi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1795
large number of similar cases guidelines
were duly issued by the Supreme Court
from time to time for making necessary
corrections in the revenue records by
deleting the name of the State Government
and substituting the name of original
tenure holders.

9. A counter affidavit has been filed
by the respondent nos. 2 and 4. In the
counter affidavit it is stated that land to the
extent of 17172.14 square meters of Beni
Prasad son of Aloopi at residence of 126
Meerapur Allahabad was declared surplus
under the provisions of Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 on the
basis of survey report submitted under
section 8(4) of the Act of 1976 vide order
dated 15.03.1982 and thereafter the final
statement was issued as provided under
section 9 of the Act of 1976. It is further
stated in the counter affidavit that land
holder filed an appeal being appeal no. 384
of 1982 before the District Judge, which
was allowed by the order dated 24.05.1983
and the order dated 15.03.1982 was set
aside and the matter was remanded to the
Prescribed
Authority.
Thereafter
the
Prescribed Authority again passed an order
dated 17.09.1985 declaring the land in
dispute as surplus. Against the aforesaid
order the tenure holder Benni Prasad filed
a Review Petition before the Prescribed
Authority
which
was
dismissed
on
21.03.1988. Against the order dated
21.03.1988 passed by the Prescribed
Authority the land holder namely Benni
Prasad filed an appeal being Appeal No.
253 of 1988 and on the said appeal an
order dated 10.04.1989 was passed by the
Prescribed Authority by which the matter
was again remanded before the Prescribed
Authority. At this point of time Prescribed
Authority
passed
an
order
dated
10.10.1995 and rejected the objections.
After the order dated 10.10.1995 was
passed
a
Gazette
notification
was
published on 19.08.1997 and 03.01.1998
as provided under section 10(1) and
Section 10(3) of the Act of 1976. An order
was passed for possession on 13.02.1998
as provided under section 10(5) of the Act
of 1976 and the name of the State
Government was recorded in the Revenue
Records in place of the land holders.

10.

Against
the
order
dated
10.10.1995 an appeal was preferred by the
land holders before the District Judge
which was numbered as Ceiling Appeal
No. 332 of 1995. District Judge in Lok
Adalat has abated the appeal filed by the
land holders vide judgment and order
dated 17.12.2000. A Review Petition was
preferred by the State Government before
the District Judge, Allahabad for reviewing
the order dated 17.12.2000 passed in
Ceiling Appeal No. 332 of 1995 which
was rejected by the District Judge vide his
judgment and order dated 08.08.2008.
After
the
aforesaid
judgment
dated
08.08.2008 was passed an application was
submitted by the Prescribed Authority to
the
Urban
Ceiling
before
State
Government seeking permission from
State Government for filing writ petition
before this Court challenging the order
dated 08.08.2008. It is argued that the
permission is still awaited and as such writ
petition could not be filed till date.

11. In the circumstances, it is argued
by the learned Standing Counsel that no
relief can be granted to the petitioners as
prayed for by them in the present writ
petition.

12. In the Rejoinder affidavit it is
stated by the petitioners that once the
Review Petition filed by the respondents
1796 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
were rejected by the District Judge and
since the aforesaid order has became final,
the order passed by the respondent no. 4
dated 23.11.2015 is liable to be set aside
and a mandamus is liable to be issued
directing the State Government to correct
the Revenue Records accordingly. It is
further argued that the petitioners are in
actual physical possession upon the land in
question and as such in view of the
Repealing Act, 1999 the entire proceedings
are deemed to be abated.

13. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

14. From perusal of the record, it
is clear that an order dated 08.08.2008
was passed by the District Judge,
Allahabad on the Review Petition filed
by the State authorities. The said
Review Petition was rejected by the
District Judge, Allahabad. Against the
aforesaid order dated 08.08.2008 no
proceedings
whatsoever
has
been
initiated by the respondents till date.
Complete
procedure
has
been
prescribed under section 10(5) and
Section 10(6) of the Act of 1976.

15. The case of the petitioners is
that though the land of the petitioners
was declared as surplus under the
provisions of the Act of 1976, but
actual physical possession of the same
was
never
taken
and
thus,
the
petitioners became entitled to the
benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal act,
1999.

16. Specific case of the petitioners is that
actual physical possession has not been taken
and mere symbolic possession would not be
sufficient as the petitioners continue in
possession of the plot in question.

17. The issue was considered by the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Ram Chandra Pandey vs. State of U.P.
reported in 2010 (82) ALR 136, wherein it
was held that mere symbolic possession does
not amount to taking over actual physical
possession. It was further held that unless
actual physical possession has been taken by
the State, the party would be entitled to the
benefit of the Repeal Act, 1999.

18. The same view has been taken by
the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P.
vs. Hari Ram [ JT 2013 (4) SC 275: 2013
(4)
SCC
280].
The
question
for
consideration before the Apex Court in the
said case was whether deemed vesting of
surplus land under section 10(3) of the Act
would amount taking over de facto
possession depriving the landholders of
the benefit of the saving clause under subsection (3) of the Repeal Act. This issue
was answered by the Apex Court in para
39 of the said judgment, which reads as
under:-

"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 Act."

19. The same issue was considered
by the Apex Court in the case of Gajanan
Kamlya Patil vs. Addl. Collector & Comp.
2 All. Smt. Seeta Devi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1797
Auth. & Ors. reported in JT 2014 (3) SC
211.

20. There is no material in the
counter affidavit to demonstrate that the
State has taken peaceful possession, nor
there is any material to demonstrate that
the possession was handed over by the
petitioners voluntarily or was taken over
by use of force. There is not even a
whisper in respect of any notice having
been issued under section 10(6) of the Act.
The facts clearly indicates that only dejure
possession has been taken by the State, not
de facto possession, before coming into
force of the Repeal Act.

21. From perusal of the record, it is
further clear that the procedure for taking
over the possession has not been adopted
by the State Government at any point of
time. Moreover nothing has been stated in
the entire counter affidavit whether any
proceedings were taken by the State
Government as provided under the Act of
1976. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
13218 of 2008, Yasin vs. State of U.P.
and others reported in 2014 (4) ADJ page
305 connected with two other writ
petitions. It was pointed out that directions
were issued by the State Government in
the year 1983 namely Uttar Pradesh Urban
Land and Ceiling (Taking Of Possession,
Payment Of Amount and Allied Matters)
Directions, 1983. It has already been held
in the aforesaid case that the register
should be maintained by the State
Government
maintaining
therein
the
procedure adopted by them for taking over
the possession for surplus land.

22. The twin questions which arise
for our consideration in this writ petition,
inter-alia, are that whether on the date of
the coming into force of the Repeal Act,
1999, actual physical possession of the
disputed land was with the petitioner or
the same stood delivered to the State and;
whether the petitioner is entitled to the
benefit of the Repeal Act?

23. In order to examine the aforesaid
questions, it would be useful to reproduce
the provisions of The Urban Land (Ceiling
and Regulation) Act, 1976 and The Urban
Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act,
1999 which are relevant for our purpose :-

6. Persons holding vacant land in
excess of ceiling limit to file statement-

(1) Every person holding vacant
land in excess of the ceiling limit at the
commencement of this Act shall, within
such period as may be prescribed, file a
statement before the competent authority
having Jurisdiction specifying the location,
extent, value and such other particulars as
may be prescribed of all vacant land and of
any other land on which there is a
building, whether or not with a dwelling
unit therein, held by him (including the
nature of his right, title or interest therein)
and also specifying the vacant land within
the ceiling limit which he desires to retain:
Provided that in relation to any State to
which this Act applies in the first instance,
the provisions of this sub-section shall
have effect as if for the words "Every
person holding vacant land in excess of the
ceiling limit and the commencement of
this Act", the words, figures and letters
"Every person who held vacant land in
excess of the ceiling limit on or after the
17th day of February, 1975 and before the
commencement of this Act and every
person holding vacant land in excess of the
ceiling limit at such commencement" had
been substituted. Explanation.--In this
section, "commencement of this Act"
means,--
1798 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(i) the date on which this Act
comes into force in any State;

(ii) where any land, not being
vacant land, situated in a State in which
this Act is in force has become vacant land
by any reason whatsoever, the date on
which such land becomes vacant land;

(iii) where any notification has
been issued under clause (n) of section 2 in
respect of any area in a State in which this
Act is in force, the date of publication of
such notification.

(2) If the competent authority is
of opinion that--

(a) in any State to which this Act
applies in the first instance, any person
held on or after the 17th day of February,
1975 and before the commencement of
this Act or holds at such commencement;
or

(b) in any State which adopts this
Act under clause (1) of article 252 of the
Constitution, any person holds at the
commencement of this Act, vacant land in
excess
of
the
ceiling
limit,
then,
notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), it may serve a notice upon such
person requiring him to file, within such period
as may be specified in the notice, the statement
referred to in sub-section (1).

(3) The competent authority may, if
it is satisfied that it is necessary so to do,
extend the date for filing the statement under
this section by such further period or periods as
it may think fit; so, however, that the period or
the aggregate of the periods of such extension
shall not exceed three months.

(4) The statement under this section
shall be filed,--

(a) in the case of an individual, by
the individual himself; where the individual is
absent from India, by the individual concerned
or by some person duly authorised by him in
this behalf; and where the individual is
mentally incapacitated from attending to his
affairs, by his guardian or any other person
competent to act on his behalf;

(b) in the case of a family, by the
husband or wife and where the husband or
wife is absent from India or is mentally
incapacitated from attending to his or her
affairs, by the husband or wife who is not so
absent or mentally incapacitated and where
both the husband and the wife are absent from
India or are mentally incapacitated from
attending to their affairs, by any other person
competent to act on behalf on the husband or
wife or both;

(c) in the case of a company, by the
principal officer thereof;

(d) in the case of a firm, by any
partner thereof;

(e) in the case of any other
association, by any member of the
association or the principal officer thereof;
and

(f) in the case of any other
person, by that person or by a person
competent
to
act
on
his
behalf.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this subsection, "principal officer"--

(i) in relation to a company,
means
the
secretary,
manager
or
managing- director of the company;

(ii) in relation to any association,
means the secretary, treasurer, manager or
agent of the association, and includes any
person connected with the management of
the affairs of the company or the
association, as the case may be, upon
whom the competent authority has served
a notice of his intention of treating his as
the principal officer thereof.

7. Filing of statement in cases
where vacant land held by a person is
situated within the jurisdiction of two or
more competent authorities.--

(1) Where a person holds vacant
land situated within the jurisdiction of two
or more competent authorities, whether in
2 All. Smt. Seeta Devi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1799
the same State or in two or more States to
which this Act applies, then, he shall file
his statement under sub-section (1) of
section 6 before the competent authority
within the jurisdiction of which the major
part thereof is situated and thereafter all
subsequent proceedings shall be taken
before that competent authority to the
exclusion of the other competent authority
or authorities concerned and the competent
authority, before which the statement is
filed, shall send intimation thereof to the
other competent authority or authorities
concerned.

(2) Where the extent of vacant
land held by any person and situated
within the jurisdiction of two or more
competent authorities within the same
State to which this Act applies is equal, he
shall file his statement under sub-section
(1) of section 6 before any one of the
competent authorities and send intimation
thereof in such form as may be prescribed
to the State Government and thereupon,
the State Government shall, by order,
determine the competent authority before
which all subsequent proceedings under
this Act shall be taken to the exclusion of
the
other
competent
authority
or
authorities and communicate that order to
such person and the competent authorities
concerned.

(3) Where the extent of vacant
land held by any person and situated
within the jurisdiction of two or more
competent authorities in two or more
States to which this Act applies is equal,
he shall file his statement under subsection (1) of section 6 before any one of
the
competent
authorities
and
send
intimation thereof in such form as may be
prescribed to the Central Government and
thereupon, the Central Government shall,
by
order,
determine
the
competent
authority before which all subsequent
proceedings shall betaken to the exclusion
of the other competent authority or
authorities and communicate that order to
such person, the State Governments and
the competent authorities concerned.

8. Preparation of draft statement
as regards vacant land held in excess of
ceiling limit-

(1) On the basis of the statement
filed under section 6 and after such inquiry
as the competent authority may deem fit to
make
the
competent
authority
shall
prepare a draft statement in respect of the
person who has filed the statement under
section 6.

(2) Every statement prepared
under sub-section (1) shall contain the
following particulars, namely:--

(i) the name and address of the
person;

(ii) the particulars of all vacant
land and of any other land on which there
is a building, whether or not with a
dwelling unit therein, held by such person;

(iii) the particulars of the vacant
lands which such person desires to retain
within the ceiling limit;

(iv) the particulars of the right,
title or interest of the person in the vacant
land; and

(v) such other particulars as may
be prescribed.

(3) The draft statement shall be
served in such manner as may be
prescribed on the person concerned
together with a notice stating that any
objection to the draft statement shall be
preferred within thirty days of the service
thereof.

(4) The competent authority
shall duly consider any objection received,
within the period specified in the notice
referred to in sub-section (3) or within
such further period as may be specified by
the competent authority for any good and
1800 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sufficient reason, from the person whom a
copy of the draft statement has been
served under that sub-section and the
competent authority shall, after giving the
objector a reasonable opportunity of being
heard, pass such orders as it deems fit.

9. Final Statement.--After the
disposal of the objections, if any, received
under sub-section (4) of section 8, the
competent
authority
shall
make
the
necessary alterations in the draft statement
in accordance with the orders passed on
the
objections
aforesaid
and
shall
determine the vacant land held by the
person concerned in excess of the ceiling
limit and cause a copy of the draft
statement as so altered to be served in the
manner referred to in sub-section (3) of
section 8 on the person concerned and
where such vacant land is held under a
lease, or a mortgage, or a hire-purchase
agreement, or an irrevocable power of
attorney, also on the owner of such vacant
land.

10. Acquisition of vacant land in
excess of ceiling limit-

(1) As soon as may be after the
service of the statement under section 9 on
the person concerned, the competent
authority shall cause a notification giving
the particulars of the vacant land held by
such person in excess of the ceiling limit
and stating that--

(i) such vacant land is to be
acquired
by
the
concerned
State
Government; and

(ii) the claims of all person
interested in such vacant land may be
made by them personally or by their
agents giving particulars of the nature of
their interests in such land, to be published
for the information of the general public in
the Official Gazette of the State concerned
and in such other manner as may be
prescribed.

(2) After considering the claims
of the persons interested in the vacant
land, made to the competent authority in
pursuance of the notification published
under sub-section (1), the competent
authority shall determine the nature and
extent of such claims and pass such orders
as it deems fit.

(3) At any time after the
publication of the notification under subsection (1) the competent authority may,
by notification published in the Official
Gazette of the State concerned, declare
that the excess vacant land referred to in
the notification published under subsection (1) shall, with effect from such
date as may be specified in the declaration,
be deemed to have been acquired by the
State
Government
and
upon
the
publication of such declaration, such land
shall be deemed to have vested absolutely
in the State Government free from all
encumbrances with effect from the date so
specified.

(4)
During
the
period
commencing on the date of publication of
the notification under sub-section (1) and
ending with the date specified in the
declaration made under sub-section (3)--

(i) no person shall transfer by
way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or
otherwise
any
excess
vacant
land
(including any part thereof) specified in
the notification aforesaid and any such
transfer made in contravention of this
provision shall be deemed to be null and
void; and

(ii) no person shall alter or cause
to be altered the use of such excess vacant
land.

(5) Where any vacant land is
vested in the State Government under subsection (3), the competent authority may,
by notice in writing, order any person who
may be in possession of it to surrender or
2 All. Smt. Seeta Devi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1801
deliver possession thereof to the State
Government or to any person duly
authorized by the State Government in this
behalf within thirty days of the service of
the notice.

(6) If any person refuses or fails
to comply with an order made under subsection (5), the competent authority may
take possession of the vacant land or cause
it to be given to the concerned State
Government or to any person duly
authorised by such State Government in
this behalf and may for that purpose use
such
force
as
may
be
necessary.
Explanation.--In this section, in subsection (1) of section 11 and in sections 14
and 23, "State Government", in relation to-
-

(a) any vacant land owned by the
Central Government, means the Central
Government;

(b) any vacant land owned by
any State Government and situated in the
Union territory or within the local limits of
a cantonment declared as such under
section 3 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (2
of 1924), means that State Government.

Section 3 and 4 of the Repeal
Act, 1999 are as hereunder :-

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 and 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.

Upon perusal of the aforesaid
provisions
of
the
principal Act,
it
transpires that Section 6 provides that
every person holding vacant land in excess
of the ceiling limit was required to file a
statement before the competent authority
having jurisdiction specifying the location,
extent, value and such other prescribed
particulars of the vacant land and of any
other land on which there was a building,
whether or not with a dwelling unit
therein, held by him.

Section 7 provides the procedure
for filing of statement in cases where
1802 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
vacant land held by a person was situated
within the jurisdiction of two or more
competent authorities.

Section 8 provides that on the
basis of the statement filed u/s 6 and after
such inquiry as the competent authority
may deem fit to make, the competent
authority shall prepare the draft statement.

Section 8 (3) stipulates that the
draft statement prepared u/s 8 shall be
served on the person concerned together
with a notice stating that any objection to
the draft statement shall be prepared
within 30 days of the service thereof.

Section 9 provides that after
disposal of the objections, if any, received
under sub-section (4) of Section 8, the
competent authority shall prepare the final
statement.

Section 10 (1) provides that after
the service of the statement u/s 9 on the
person concerned, the competent authority
shall cause a notification giving the
particulars of the vacant land held by such
person in excess of the ceiling limit to be
published in the Official Gazette of the
State concerned for the information of the
general public.

Section 10 (2) empowers the
competent authority to decide the claims
of the persons interested in the vacant land
filed in pursuance of the notification
published under sub-section (1).

Section 10 (3) provides that the
competent authority concerned may, by
notification published in the Official
Gazette of the State concerned, anytime
after the publication of the notification
under sub-section (1) declare that excess
vacant land referred to in the notification
published under sub-section (1) with effect
from such date as may be specified in the
declaration, be deemed to be have been
acquired by the State Government. Such
land shall be deemed to have vested
absolutely in the State Government free
from all encumbrances.

Section 10 (4) prohibits transfer
by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or
otherwise by any person any excess vacant
land (including any part thereof) specified
in the notification aforesaid and any such
transfer made in contravention of this
provision shall be deemed to be null and
void and no person shall alter or cause to
be altered the use of such excess vacant
land.

Section 10 (5) empowers the
competent authority to order any person by
notice in writing who is in possession of
any vacant land vested in the State
Government under sub-section (3) to
surrender or deliver possession thereof to
State Government or to any person duly
authorized by the State Government in this
behalf within thirty days of the service of
the notice.

Section 10 (6) states where any
person refuses or fails to comply with an
order made under sub-section (5), the
competent authority may take possession
of the vacant land or cause it to be given to
the concerned State Government or to any
person duly authorized by such State
Government in this behalf and may for
that purpose use such force as may be
necessary.

24. From Perusal of the facts as
stated above, it is clear that the actual
physical possession of the land in dispute
was never taken by the respondents at any
point of time. Nothing has been stated in
the entire counter affidavit regarding the
procedure by which the actual physical
possession of the petitioners were taken by
the respondents. Moreover as stated above
an order dated 17.12.2000 has already
been passed by the District Judge,
Allahabad in Ceiling Appeal No. 332 of
2 All. All India Transformer Manufacturers Association & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1803
1995 by which the benefit of the
Repealing Act of 1999 has already been
provided to the petitioners. Further from
perusal of the record it is clear that against
the aforesaid order dated 17.12.2000 a
Review Petition was preferred by the State
Government before the District Judge,
Allahabad which was numbered as Misc.
Case No. 930 of 2002, the same was
rejected by the District Judge, Allahabad
vide its order dated 08.08.2008. The
aforesaid order has became final between
the parties. The entries in the Revenue
records were not corrected by the State
Authorities, a writ petition was preferred
by the petitioners before the Court being
Writ Petition No. 68554 of 2011 (Smt.
Seeta Devi and Others Supra). On the
basis of the directions given by this Court
in
the
aforesaid
writ
petition
on
06.02.2015 a decision has been taken by
the respondent no. 4 dated 23.11.2015
rejecting the claim set up by the
petitioners. The only reason given in the
aforesaid order is that the letters were
already written by the District Magistrate
to the State Government seeking their
comments in the matter. Record further
reveals that till date no order whatsoever
has been passed by the State Government
pursuant to the letters written by the
District Magistrate, Allahabad in the
matter.

25. In the facts and circumstances of the
case, we are of the opinion that the order
passed by the respondent no. 4 dated
23.11.2015 which is under challenge in the
present writ petition is liable to be quashed and
the same is hereby quashed. A mandamus is
issued to the respondents to correct the
Revenue Records accordingly pertaining to the
land in dispute by deleting the words 'State
Land' from the Revenue Records and record
the names of the petitioners in place of 'State
Land'. The aforesaid exercise shall be
completed by the respondents specially the
respondent no.2/District Magistrate, Allahabad
within a period of three months from the date
of production of certified copy of this order
before him.

26. With the aforesaid directions, the writ
petition is allowed. No order as to cost.
----------
(2020)02ILR A1803

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.11.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ C No. 20776 of 2019

All
India
Transformer
Manufacturers
Association & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Vivek Saran

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Krishna Agrawal

Government order -guidelines for quality
check of transformers-if on inspection
found
defective-actions
providedchallenged-as it amounts to modification of
the conditions under agreement -between
the parties-held-guidelines to be read in
acclamation
to
terms
and
conditions
provided under each agreement between
the parties-impugned order not arbitraryW.P. dismissed.

Cases cited:

Delhi Transport Corporation vs. D.T.C.
Mazdoor Congress & ors, (1991) Suppl )1)
Sec 600