Disposed¶40

Santram and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC24 Sept 2025WRIC/27619/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Urban land ceiling; Ceiling Act 1976; Repeal Act 1999 section 3(1)(a) saving provision; possession not taken; section 10(5) notice dated 29.08.1989; stay order 06.09.1989; appeal dismissed 04.01.1993; 1500 square meters claim; gata nos. 929-934, 793-796, 839, 479; village Vihar Man Nagla/Bihar Man Nagla, Tehsil and District Bareilly; mutation; perverse order quashed; locus standi; Writ-C 27619 of 2024; Allahabad High Court; Arindam Sinha J.; Avnish Saxena J.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 2nd March, 2024 set aside and quashed; petitioners entitled to consequential relief of mutation of their names in the record. ¶40

Santram and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 2nd March, 2024 set aside and quashed; petitioners entitled to consequential relief of mutation of their names in the record.

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the acquisition of the declared surplus land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 survives the repeal effected by the Repeal Act, 1999 — i.e., whether the State had taken possession of the land, as required by the saving provision in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 3. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

Under the saving provision in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999, the acquisition is saved only where possession of the vested vacant land has been taken over by the State Government or the competent authority; accordingly, the sole question in the case is whether the State had taken possession.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The State's contention that the petitioners lack locus because they dealt with the land pertains to enforcement of the provisions of the 1976 Act, which stands repealed; hence that contention does not bar the challenge, and the only relevant question is whether the State had taken possession.

¶27

Key takeaways

There is no document, even prima facie, showing taking or delivery of possession: the only material disclosed is the notice dated 29th August, 1989 under section 10(5); stay was obtained on 6th September, 1989 within thirty days; the State disclosed no document showing possession taken thereafter, nor even after the appeal was dismissed on 4th January, 1993.ratio¶34
The impugned order is not based on relevant evidence nor the law and is therefore perverse; it is set aside and quashed, and the petitioners are entitled to the consequential relief of mutation.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Arindam Sinha & Avnish Saxena, JJ.; per Arindam Sinha, J.), Writ-C No. 27619 of 2024, decided September 25, 2025 — Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 repealed by Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999; saving in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 3 applies only to vested vacant land whose possession has been taken over by the State Government or the competent authority — competent authority's order dated 2nd March, 2024 (passed pursuant to Division Bench direction in Writ-C no. 18174 of 2023) treated the surplus land acquisition as saved — State relied on notice dated 29th August, 1989 under section 10(5) and alleged voluntary handing over of possession after 28 years — no document disclosed showing taking of possession, even after dismissal on 4th January, 1993 of the predecessors' appeal — impugned order not based on relevant evidence or law, hence perverse — set aside and quashed; petitioners entitled to consequential relief of mutation — writ petition disposed of. Locus objection (petitioners having sold the land) rejected as pertaining to enforcement of the repealed 1976 Act.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 27619 of 2024

¶3

Santram And 4 Others

¶4

	Versus		.....Petitioner(s)
State Of U.P. And 3 Others			.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Madhusudan Singh	Dikshit,	Upendra Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Dharm	endra Sin	gh Chauhan

¶5

Court No. - 39

¶6

HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J. HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

¶7

(Per Arindam Sinha, J.)

¶8

Petitioners have challenged order dated 2nd March, 2024 passed by respondent no. 3 (the competent authority). The order came to be made pursuant to direction by a Division Bench of this Court on order dated 8th August, 2023 disposing of Writ-C no. 18174 of 2023 (petitioners' own case). It is relevant to extract and reproduce, from said order, recital of prayer in the writ petition.

¶9

"2. Present writ petition is preferred with a prayer to command and direct the respondent authorities to decide the claim of the petitioners dated 07.04.2023, which is pending before Competent Authority/Additional District Magistrate(City), Urban Land Ceiling Bareilly, District Bareilly-respondent no.3 and not to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioners over Gata no.929, 930, 931, 932, 933, 934, 793, 794, 795, 796, 839, 479 area 2755.99 sq. mtr. situtated at village Vihar Man Nagla, Tehsil and District Bareilly."

¶10

On query Mr. Madhusudan Dikshit, learned advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners submits, the several gata numbers mentioned in the prayer, having area 4318.99 square meters situate at village Bihar Man Nagla, Tehsil, District Bareilly is the entire/whole land, from which part was declared surplus by the Ceiling Authority.

¶11

WRIC No. 27619 of 2024

¶12

¶13

Mr. Dikshit submits, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 stood repealed by Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. Relying on clause (a) under section 3 (1) he submits, said clause is relevant saving provision for State and the development authority (allottee), to rely upon. Said clause (3 (1) (a) is reproduced below.

¶14

"3. Saving (1) The repeal of the principal Act shall not affect -

¶15

(a) the vesting of any vacant land under sub-section (3) of Section 10 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;"

¶16

(emphasis supplied)

¶17

Mr. Dikshit submits, clear case of his clients is that possession was not taken. He refers to paragraph-18 in counter affidavit dated 23rd May, 2025 filed on behalf of State. A sentence from the paragraph is reproduced below.

¶18

"18. ... The correct facts are that the possession of the urban ceiling land was voluntarily handed over to the State Government by the sons of Original Tenure Holder Late Chandan hence now 2nd Generation, after 28 years of recording the name of the State Government in the Revenue records, are left with no right or tile and also are not entitled to challenge the urban ceiling proceeding at such belated stage..."

¶19

(emphasis supplied)

¶20

He submits, impugned order be set aside to remove the cloud cast over his clients' title to the land and there be consequential direction for mutating their names in the record.

¶21

Mr. Mohan Srivastava, learned advocate, Standing Counsel appears on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3 (State). He submits, possession was taken as voluntarily given by predecessors-in-

¶22

WRIC No. 27619 of 2024

¶23

¶24

interest of petitioners. Without prejudice he submits, petitioners have no locus to challenge impugned order as they have sold away their right, title and interest in the land. Dispute on fact regarding possession cannot be raised by the writ petition after long 28 years. He submits further, there should be no interference. The writ petition be dismissed.

¶25

Mr. Dharmendra Singh Chauhan, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent no. 4 (the development authority). He submits, his client has been duly allotted the surplus land, declared surplus under section 8 (4) in the Ceiling Act of 1976. He draws attention to memorandum of appeal preferred by predecessors-in-interest of petitioners. He demonstrates that scope of the appeal was claim on a part of the land declared surplus. The appeal stood dismissed on 4th January, 1993. That order has become final. This is in addition to submissions made by State. He too opposes the writ petition, for its dismissal.

¶26

Mr. Dikshit in reply submits, the appeal was dismissed for non prosecution/default. There was stay order made in it.

¶27

The controversy before us revolves around saving of the acquisition of declared surplus land under the Ceiling Act of 1976, as provided in the Repeal Act of 1999. Contention of State that subsequently the land was dealt with by petitioners' and, therefore, they do not have locus is for purpose of enforcing the provisions in the 1976 Act. It stands repealed. Hence, the only question is whether State had taken possession.

¶28

From materials on record before us we find State has disclosed in its counter, notice dated 29th August, 1989 issued under section 10 (5) of the Ceiling Act, 1976. The provision is reproduced below.

¶29

"10 (5) Where any vacant land is vested in the State Government under sub-section (3), the competent authority may, by notice in writing, order any person who may be in possession of it to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the State

¶30

WRIC No. 27619 of 2024

¶31

¶32

Government or to any person duly authorized by the State Government in this behalf within thirty days of the service of the notice ."

¶33

(emphasis supplied)

¶34

The record also reveals, the appeal stood preferred and there was order dated 6th September, 1989, of stay. The stay order came within 30 days from issuance of the notice. State has not disclosed any document to show possession taken thereafter. Not even post 4th January, 1993, when the appeal was dismissed. As such it follows, there is no document to show delivery of possession.

¶35

On query Mr. Dikshit submits, the appeal could not have been filed without first giving notice to respondent in it (State). That was the procedure. The submission is not disputed. Furthermore, on behalf of the authority we have been shown that the appeal was in respect of 1500 square meters to be released from the land declared surplus under section 8 (4) in the Ceiling Act, 1976. We find disclosed in the counter affidavit of State, representation dated 5th May, 1989 having had been made in respect of 1500 square meters of the land. The representation stood rejected on order dated 31st July, 1989. This order was assailed in appeal and, as aforesaid, stay order made on 6th September, 1989.

¶36

It may well be that petitioners or their predecessors-in-interest had accepted the declaration of surplus, less their claim of 1500 square meters of land, sought to be taken possession of on said notice dated 29th August, 1989 issued under section 10 (5). However, for purpose of saving the acquisition made under the Ceiling Act, 1976, we repeat, the only consideration relevant to present case is, whether possession was duly taken. There is no evidence, even prima facie , to show such. Here we must add that subsequently petitioners, when had moved this Court by their earlier Writ-C no. 18174 of 2023 , dealt with on aforesaid order dated 8th August, 2023 (supra), they had raised challenge in respect of the entire land and there was compliance of the order made, on

¶37

WRIC No. 27619 of 2024

¶38

¶39

respondent no. 3 having had gone into the matter and passed impugned order.

¶40

In view of aforesaid we find impugned order to be not based on relevant evidence nor the law. Hence it is perverse. Impugned order is set aside and quashed. Petitioners will be entitled to consequential relief of mutation.

¶41