AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
@
Rajesh H Shukla, J.—Special Civil Application No. 2065 of 2002 is filed by the petitioner under Articles 14, 19, 21, 41, 300(A) and 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the ULC Act") and the Rules framed thereunder and also under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "the Repeal Act") for the prayer inter alia that appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the competent authority at Annexure-L dated 24.8.1987 declaring it as a surplus land and also further direction that the symbolic possession which is stated to have been taken may be set aside and also to quash and set aside the mutation of entry nos. 998 and 1020 at Annexure-E and Annexure-F as prayed in detail in the prayer clause.
Heard learned Advocate Shri K.K. Trivedi for the petitioner and learned AGP Shri Udit Mehta for the Respondents.
Learned Advocate Shri Trivedi has referred to the papers and submitted that form no. 1 was filled in by the petitioner and thereafter it was decided to declare the land as surplus land on 24.8.1987 by the impugned order. However, learned Advocate Shri Trivedi submitted that the actual physical possession of the land in question has not been taken over till the Repeal Act came into force and therefore it may be declared that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of the Repeal Act for the reasons stated in the application including the observations made by the Hon''ble Apex Court in case of State of U.P. Vs. Hari Ram, .
Learned Advocate Shri Trivedi has also referred to the order passed in Special Civil Application No. 2062 of 2002 and allied matters dated 24.7.2002 and submitted that though the claim is made with regard to the possession having been taken over, in fact it has not been taken over. He referred to the copies of the order produced on record and also the additional affidavit.
Learned AGP Shri Udit Mehta has referred to the papers and has stated that on instruction and verification of the record it appears that the de-facto possession has not been taken over from petitioner in compliance with the provisions of the ULC Act particularly after following the procedure as required under Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the ULC Act. Learned AGP Shri Udit Mehta has therefore submitted that appropriate orders may be passed.
In view of these background of facts and referring to the earlier proceedings including Special Civil application No. 2062 of 2002 and other allied matters, the order came to be passed by the court dated 30.6.2014 directing the learned AGP to verify with regard to actual physical possession and the procedure followed as required under the law. The statement made would therefore clinch the issue and since the possession cannot be said to have been taken over legally and validly after following the procedure under Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the ULC Act the impugned order cannot be sustained in light of the provisions of the Repeal Act. Therefore the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of the Repeal Act.
As observed in the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in case of Hari Ram (supra), the present petition therefore stands allowed. The prayer in terms of paragraph 9(B) deserves to be granted. The impugned order passed by the competent authority dated 24.8.1987 at Annexure-L is hereby quashed and set aside. Further the mutation of the entries at Annexure-E and Annexure-F also deserves to be quashed and set aside and accordingly are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.
It is pointed out that pursuant to the order passed by this court while entertaining the present Special Civil Application, an order was passed directing the petitioners to deposit an amount of Rs. 10,000/- which according to learned Advocate Shri K.K. Trivedi is deposited. With the consent of the parties the amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by this court dated 12.2.2002 is directed to be remitted and paid to the Legal Aid Committee.
It is also clarified that in light of this order passed in Special Civil Application No. 2065 of 2002, the Special Civil Application No. 14380 of 2006 with Special Civil Application No. 14381 of 2006 to Special Civil Application No. 14385 of 2006 would also stand disposed of as the necessary consequences has to follow when the order is quashed and set aside. The petitioners may make an application for mutation of the entry based on subsequent transactions or the sale deed referred to in the aforesaid Special Civil Application No. 14380 of 2006 with Special Civil Application No. 14381 of 2006 to Special Civil Application No. 14385 of 2006.
It goes without saying that if such an application is made within a period of three weeks by the petitioners the same shall be considered by the appropriate concerned authority in accordance with law within a period of six weeks thereafter.
Accordingly the aforesaid Special Civil Application No. 14380 of 2006 with Special Civil Application No. 14381 of 2006 to Special Civil Application No. 14385 of 2006 also stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.
Direct service permitted.