AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Virendra Singh, J.
Connect with Writ Petition No.69124 of 2009.
Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of all the respondents. She is allowed four weeks'' time to file counter affidavit. The petitioners will have one week thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.
List on 2.2.2010.
The counsel for petitioners has relied upon the report of the revenue authorities of the year 2007, to submit that after the enforcement of the Urban Land Ceiling & Regulation (Repeal) Act, 1999 adopted by the State of U.P. on 18.3.1999, the proceedings under the Ceiling Act have to abate and that wherever the owners of the land or tenure holders are actual physical possession of the land, even if it was declared surplus, and the notice was given under Section 10 (5) of the Act, it would revert back to the tenure holders. He has relied upon judgments in (1) Pt. Madan Swaroop Shrotiya Public Charitable Trust vs. State of UP & Ors JT 2000 (3) SC 391; (2) Mohammad Mustak Khan and others vs. State of UP and others, Writ Petition No. 16455 of 2003 decided on 11.3.2003 (Hon''ble M. Katju, and Hon''ble Prakash Krishna, J.J.); (3) Chabi Nathvs. State of U.P. through its Secretary, Department of Urban Land Ceiling and others 2005 (59) ALR 413 (Hon''ble A.K. Yog and Hon''ble B.B. Agarwal, J.J.); (4) State of UP vs. Devendra Nath and another, Writ Petition No. 76070 of 2005 decided on 15.12.2005 (Hon''ble Sushil Harkauli and Hon''ble Sabhajeet Yadav, J.J.); (5) State of UP vs. Ram Adhar and others, Writ Petition No. 12260 of 2002 decided on 20.12.2006 ( Hon''ble R.K. Agrawal and Hon''ble Vikram Nath, J.J.); (6) Ravindra Prakash Misra and others vs. State of U.P. and others 2007 (4) ADJ 426 (DB) (Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon''ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.J.) and (7) Babu Chand and others vs. State of UP and others 2009 (75) ALR 873 (Hon''ble P.C. Verma and Hon''ble Rajesh Chandra, J.J.).
Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand relies upon judgments in Dr. Ramakrishna Reddy and others vs. Addl. Revenue Divisional Officers and others (2000) 7 SCC 12 in which the vesting of surplus land under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 was under consideration and the judgment in Ritesh Tewari and another vs. State of U.P. and others 2009 (2) ADJ 97 (DB) (Hon''ble Arun Tandon and Hon''ble Dilip Gupta, J.J.) in which the effect of the Repeal Act on the sale made by the owners of the land after the land was declared surplus was under consideration, to submit that for open lands actual physical possession, after the notice under Section 10 (5) of the Act is not relevant.
It is stated that inspite of the orders of this Court the Collector has not decided the matter regarding petitioners'' claim of actual physical possession over the land in dispute.
The matter requires consideration.
Until further orders, the respondents shall not dispossess the petitioners from the land declared as surplus, if the petitioners are still in actual physical possession on the land.