Sankatha Prasad and others vs State of U.P.and another

P.C. Verma and D.R. Azad, JJ.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the record.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners restricts their prayer only to the extent that the representation of the petitioners may be decided to which learned Counsel for the respondents have no objection.

The petitioners seek benefit of section 3 of The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 wherein it has been provided that in case the petitioners are found in possession on the date of repeal the said land shall not be declared as vacant.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners have stated that the petitioners are in actual physical possession of the disputed land. As such he is entitled to the benefit of section 3 (2) (a) of the Repeal Act, 1999.

We cannot record any finding here as it relates to totally factual possession on the spot. Therefore, we direct the Collector, Varanasi to make a fresh independent inquiry as to whether the petitioners are in actual physical possession for which the Collector will record the oral evidence of the neighbours and examine other evidence relevant for deciding the issue relating to the actual physical possession of the petitioners. The Collector shall also examine the title of the petitioners qua the disputed land. If, it is, found that the petitioners possess the title and are in actual physical possession of the land in question they shall not be dispossessed and the land shall not be treated as vacant land.

With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of.