Allowed

Smt. Kailashi and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2017WRIC/31274/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking a direction not to interfere with the petitioner's possession of land. The Court held that ceiling proceedings abated because no valid notice under Section 10(5) of the 1976 Act was issued before the repeal Act came into force, and documents claiming possession were forged.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; petitioners entitled to retain possession; respondents restrained from interfering; awarded costs of Rs. 25,000.

Smt. Kailashi and Another Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31274 of 2015

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Kailashi and another Respondent :- State of U.P. and others Counsel for Petitioner :- S.N. Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.

¶6

Heard Sri S.N. Tripathi, Advocate, for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

¶7

The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere with the possession of petitioners over land in question as according to petitioners, land in question though was declared surplus under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1976”) but since actual physical possession was not taken and in the meanwhile Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1999”) came into force, therefore ceiling proceedings stood abated in respect to land in question and thus petitioners are entitled to retain possession of land in question. It is further submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that in the present case no notice was served and entire proceedings took place on their back which is not in accordance with law and are liable to be held null and void.

¶8

In reply to the pleadings so raised in the writ petition, a counter affidavit has been filed by State-respondents stating therein that ceiling proceedings were undertaken in accordance with law and notice was duly published under Section 10(3) of Act, 1976 in respect to land declared surplus. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that notice under Section 10(5) of Act, 1976 was issued to petitioners for surrendering their possession and this was also done through beat of drums and this all exercise was done according to respondents prior to

¶9

¶10

coming into force Act, 1999.

¶11

We have perused the counter affidavit in order to verify the contention so raised that ceiling proceedings have arrived at to its logical end with ultimate delivery of possession in the present case. A document has been filed as Annexure-4 to the counter affidavit purported to be a notice under Section 10(5) of Act, 1976 but we find from its bare perusal that many important columns have been left blank except name of person, the plot number and then even no date has been mentioned as to when it is issued. On the next page, we find that there is a note to the effect that possession has been taken with beat of drums and that tenure holders refused to sign it. There is no witness signing this document. We are surprised to see that even a notice under Section 10(5) of Act, 1976 has not been issued and there is no service of notice but on its' back, it is written that possession has been taken but tenure holder refused to put his signature. This document in our considered opinion cannot be called a possession memo as even notice under Section 10(5) of Act, 1976 is not issued in this case. So there was no question of issuance of a notice under Section 10(6) and taking forceful possession. The aforesaid documents are therefore, absolutely forged and manipulated documents and cannot be considered to be lawfully executed. Under the circumstances, we have no option but to hold that since no notice was issued under Section 10(5) of Act, 1976, there was no occasion for the tenure holder to voluntarily surrender possession of land. The document that is tried to be shown as a possession memo is also forged and fraudulent document and appears to have been prepared purposefully to defect the claim of petitioner. Thus, we find that averments made in the writ petition that entire proceedings took place on the back of petitioners is correct.

¶12

In view of above, the writ petition deserves to succeed and is hereby allowed. We hold that ceiling proceedings, if any took place in

¶13

¶14

the case in hand, have stood abated. Respondents are restrained from interfering with the possession of petitioners over land in dispute and it will always be open to petitioners to get the revenue record corrected.

¶15

We are sure that this writ petition has been forced upon petitioners on the basis of manipulated and fraudulent documents which is a condemnable act and such conduct on the part of respondents-authorities is reprimanded. We, therefore, hold that petitioner shall be entitled to cost quantified to Rs. 25,000/-. Dt. 12.12.2017 PS

Smt. Kailashi and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kailashi and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Aruna Jain Vs State of U.P. and Others

Prem Lata Sinha Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Hori Lal @ Anurudh Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

State of U.P. and Others Vs Jagdish Prasad Pathak and Others

Govind Prasad Ojha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohan Meakin Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others