Disposed

Ram Babu Rastogi v. District Judge Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC21 Sept 2022WRIC/1000068/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal court awarded benefit under Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 to a petitioner whose land possession was not taken by the State, thereby abating ongoing legal proceedings. The court relied on Supreme Court precedents to apply the abatement provision.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings abated under Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.

Ram Babu Rastogi Vs District Judge Lucknow and Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 22

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1000068 of 1997

¶3

Petitioner :- Ram Babu Rastogi Respondent :- District Judge Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- N.K.Seth Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Shri N.K. Seth, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State.

¶6

Present petition assails the orders dated 31.05.1991 and 14.08.1991 passed by the Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Lucknow. It also impugns the order dated 26.09.1996 passed by the Appellate Authority.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is entitle for the benefit of Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act, 1999) which provides abatement of legal proceedings in case the possession has not been taken. It is further submitted that the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit in the year 2005 mentioning specifically therein that till date, possession has not been taken from the petitioner.

¶8

It has further been submitted that during the pendency of the present petition the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for brevity, the Act, 1976) has been repealed by the Act, 1999. Thereafter, the legislature of the State of Uttar Pradesh has adopted the provisions of the Act, 1999 by a resolution as required by Article 252 (2) of the Constitution. It has come into force w.e.f. 18.03.1999

¶9

In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pt. Madan Swaroop Shrotiya Public Charitable Trust Vs. State of U.P. and others (2006) 6 SCC 325 . Reliance has also been placed in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Hari Ram (213 (4) ESC 249 (SC) .

¶10

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel on the basis of the instructions received telephonically from Sri Sandeep Gupta, A.D.M. concerned, has submitted that possession has not been taken due to the interim order passed in favour of the petitioner and no further steps have been taken as per Section 10 of the Act, 1976. He has not disputed the proposition of law settled by

¶11

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pd. Madan Swaroop Shrotiya Public Charitable Trust (supra) and Hari Ram (supra).

¶12

Considering the submissions raised by learned counsel for the respective parties, going through the record and the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme court in the Pd. Madan Swaroop Shrotiya Public Charitable Trust (supra) and Hari Ram (supra), the position which emerges out in the present case is that Section 4 of the Act, 1999 provides abatement of legal proceedings relating to any order or purported to be made under the principal Act pending immediately before the commencement of this Act, before any Court, Tribunal or other authority. The said section also provides that it shall not apply to the proceedings relating to Sections 11,12, 13 and 14 of the Principal Act insofar as such proceedings are relateable to the land, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorized by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority.

¶13

In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that possession is still with the petitioner, which has neither been taken over by the State Government or by any person duly authorized by the State Government, thus, petitioner is entitled for the benefit of Section 4 of the Act, 1999 and hence, the proceedings are hereby abated under Section 4 of the Act, 1999.

¶14

In view of the observations made hereinabove, the present petition is disposed of finally.

¶15

Order Date :- 21.9.2022 Ashish

¶16

Digitally signed by ASHISH MISHRA Date: 2022.09.22 11:22:14 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Babu Rastogi v. District Judge Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Babu Rastogi v. District Judge Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shafiq Ahmad Khan and Others Vs Additional Commissioner Judicial and Others

Prabhakar Singh Vs Commissioner Lucknow Division Lukcnow and Another

Mirza Irfan Beg Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Home Govt.of Up Lucknow and Ors.

U.P. Sabhi Ke Liye Shiksha Pariyojna Parishad Lucknow Vs Prescribed Authority Under Payment of Wages Act. 1936 Lko.

Mudassar Husain and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. Thru Collector Bahraich and 2 Ors.

Smt. Khatoon and 11 Ors. Z.a./L.R. Act Vs II Nd Additional District Judge Bahraich and 2 Ors.