UMA DEVI AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U P AND 2 OTHERS

                                                        Reserved on 11.08.2026
                                                       Delivered on 15.09.2026
         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - C No. - 18859 of 2018

Uma Devi And 2 Others
                                                             .....Petitioner(s)
                                  Versus

State Of U P And 2 Others
                                                           .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)      : Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Vishnu Pratap
Counsel for Respondent(s)      : Abhinava Krishna Srivastava, C.S.C.,
                                 Pradeep Kumar Tripathi

Court No. - 40
                 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
                 HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.

             (Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhanshu Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Shri Vishnu Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
Standing Counsel for State and Shri Abhinava Krishna Srivastava, learned
counsel for the respondent no.3.

2. The present writ petition has been filed, being aggrieved by the order
dated 21.02.2018, passed by the Competent Authority, Urban Ceiling,
Kanpur Nagar, by means of which the representation of the petitioners
dated 07.02.2018 for expunging the entries in the name of the State and
recording the same in the name of the petitioners has been rejected.
Besides, a direction has also been sought to restore the entries in the name
of the petitioners in the revenue records in respect of the land in dispute.

3. The present controversy arises out of proceedings under the Urban
Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the
Act, 1976"). The land in dispute measures about 11,819.96 sq. m. and is
comprised in Gata No. 145, Gata No. 70, and Gata No. 146, situated in
Village Kharagpur, Kanpur Nagar.

4. The original landholder of the land in dispute was Ram Autar, father of
petitioner nos. 2 and 3 and father-in-law of petitioner no. 1. Ram Autar
had filed a ceiling return under Section 6(1), which was registered as
                                                        WRIC No. 18859 of 2018
                                2


Ceiling Return No. 8908. Subsequently, notice under Section 8(3) was
issued on 12.05.1979 and an order dated 25.10.1980 was passed under
Section 8(4) declaring 11,819.96 square meters of land as excess vacant
land. The notice under Section 9 dated 20.12.1980 was issued. Thereafter,
notifications under Sections 10(1) and Section 10(3) were published in the
State Gazette on 26.12.1981 and 16.03.1985 respectively. It is further
alleged on behalf of the respondents that possession of the land in dispute
was taken on 25.05.1992. Thereafter, possession of the land in dispute
was transferred to the Kanpur Development Authority.

5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that notice
under Section 9 was never served upon Ram Autar. It is further stated that
notice under Sections 10(5) and 10(6) was never sent to Ram Autar.
Further, the letter dated 09.04.1992, in pursuance of which possession
was allegedly taken on 25.05.1992, cannot be said to be a notice under
Section 10(6), and it was never sent to the original tenure-holder, Ram
Autar. Further, the petitioners have relied upon the Khasra for Fasli Years
1400, Fasli Year 1408 and Fasli Year 1421 corresponding to years 1993
CE , 2001 CE and 2014 CE respectively, to show that the petitioners are
in possession of the land in dispute. Hence, it is contended that, in view of
the fact that no notice under Section 10(5) was ever served upon the
original tenure-holder, Ram Autar, nor was actual physical possession
taken under Section 10(6), thus, the petitioners are entitled to remain in
possession of the land in dispute. Further, respondent no. 2, in the
impugned order dated 21.02.2018, had wrongly held that possession, in
pursuance of the notice dated 09.04.1992 issued under Section 10(6), had
been taken on 25.05.1992.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contended that Ram
Autar was duly served with the notice under Section 8(3) and in this
regard, reliance has been placed upon the acknowledgment dated
06.06.1979, received upon delivery of the notice under Section 8(3) sent
to Ram Autar through registered post. It is also contended that Ram Autar
had filed his objection dated 11.10.1979 before the Competent Authority.
Besides, time was also sought by Ram Autar to place further evidence
before the Competent Authority. Under these circumstances, it cannot be
said that Ram Autar had no knowledge regarding the proceedings under
                                                     WRIC No. 18859 of 2018
                              3


Section 8 (4) of the Act, 1976. Subsequently, by means of the order dated
25.10.1980 passed under Section 8(4) 11,819.96 square meters of land
was declared excess vacant. Thereafter, the final statement under Section
9 dated 20.12.1980 was sent to Ram Autar through registered post and the
acknowledgment thereof was also received. Notifications under Sections
10(1) and 10(3) were published in the State Gazette on 10.02.1981 and
16.03.1985.

7. Subsequently a notice under Section 10(5) was issued to Ram Autar
through registered post on 17.10.1988. The said notice was also duly
served upon Ram Autar on 24.10.1988, and the acknowledgment due
thereof has been filed as CA Annexure No. 3 to the counter affidavit.
However, as possession of the land in dispute was not handed over to the
respondents, a direction was issued on 09.04.1992 by the District
Magistrate to the Tehsildar and possession of the land in dispute was
taken on 25.05.1992. In the meanwhile, vide order dated 25.03.1989 the
land in dispute was directed to be recorded in the name of State in the
revenue records. Further the possession of the land in dispute was
transferred to the Kanpur Development Authority-respondent no. 3, on
24.10.2001. Thus, it is contended that the proceedings under the Act,
1976 stood concluded much prior to the enforcement of the Repeal Act,
1999, and as such, the impugned order dated 21.02.2018 has rightly been
passed.

8. We have perused the records as well as the original records of the Case
No. 8908 (State vs. Ram Autar). The record reveals that the notice under
Section 8(3) was duly served upon the original landholder Ram Autar and
he had also filed his objections dated 11.10.1979. Subsequent to the order
dated 25.10.1980 passed under Section 8(4). The notice under Section 9
was also duly served upon Ram Autar. Thereafter, the notice under
Section 10(5) was also issued through registered post and served upon
Ram Autar on 24.10.1988. As the original landholder did not voluntarily
hand over possession of the land in dispute, a direction was issued on
09.04.1992 by District Magistrate to the concerned Tehsildar and
possession of the land in dispute was taken on 25.05.1992. Hence, there is
no infirmity in the procedure followed by the respondents in complying
with the provisions of the Act, 1976.
                                                                  WRIC No. 18859 of 2018
                                     4


9. In this regard, the pleadings of the parties are also relevant the
petitioners in paragraph no.12 of the writ petition has stated as under:-

“12. That, after impugned order was passed by the competent authority the
Petitioners got the original record inspected and found that the notice under Section
10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 and under Section 10(6)
of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 was never even sent either to
the original tenure holder or to the present writ Petitioners.”

10. The respondents in paragraph no. 14 of the counter affidavit in
response thereto have stated as under:-

“14. That the contents of paragraph no. 12 of the writ petition is incorrect as stated
hence denied. In reply thereto it is submitted that the notice under section 10(5), dated
17.10.1988 was sent to the original tenure holder by the registered post. A copy of the
registry receipt is being enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure No. C.A.-3 to this
affidavit. However within the prescribed time no objection was received and therefore
on 25.02.1992, the possession was obtained of the disputed land under section 10(6).
No separate notice was required to be sent under section 10(6) in view of the law laid
down in (State of Assam Vs. Bhaskar Jyoti Sharma). In writ petition no. 20035/2016
Polu Vs. State of U.P. this Hon'ble court has held that notice under section 10(6) is
not required to be sent to the original tenure holder since no hindrance was caused at
the time of taking possession on the spot.”

11. The petitioners, in response thereto, in the rejoinder affidavit, have
stated as under:-

“14. That, averments made in paragraph No.14 of the counter affidavit as stated are
not admitted. In reply averments made in para 13 of Writ Petition is reiterated and
reaffirmed as true. However the case of State of Assam Vs Bhashkar Jyoti Sharma
which has been relied upon by the Respondents in para under reply do not have any
relevance with the facts of the instant case and the same shall be placed before the
Hon'ble Court at the time of the argument.”

12. As the petitioners, in paragraph no. 14 of the rejoinder affidavit, have
placed reliance on paragraph no. 13 of the writ petition, the same is also
reproduced hereinunder and reads as below:-

"13. That, thereafter the Petitioners obtained the certified copy of the letter issued by
                                                               WRIC No. 18859 of 2018
                                    5

the competent authority to Tehsildar Kanpur dated 9.4.1992. A perusal of the
aforesaid letter indicates that by the said letter the competent authority has directed
the Tehsildar to take the possession as well as mutate the name of the urban ceiling in
the revenue record. On the back of the aforesaid letter there was a report of Tehsildar
it has been mentioned in the impugned order as possession report dated 25.5.1992.
For kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court a true/photo copy of certified copy of the letter
dated 9.4.1992 and report on the back of dated 25.5.1992 is being annexed herewith
and marked as Annexure No.4 of this writ petition."

13. Thus, upon perusal of the averments made in the relevant paragraphs
of the rejoinder affidavit and the writ petition, the petitioners do not
dispute the service of the notice under Section 10(5) issued to the original
landholder, Ram Autar. Besides, the petitioners also do not dispute the
fact that possession of the land in dispute was taken over on 25.05.1992.
Further, the petitioners in the writ petition had incorrectly alleged that
notice under Section 10(5) was sent to original landholder.

14. It would not be out of place to mention here that the petitioners have
failed to produce any evidence to show that the petitioners were in valid
possession of the land in dispute at the time of enforcement of the Repeal
Act, 1999 or thereafter, as the Khasras relied upon by the petitioners
reveal that the land in dispute was recorded in the name of Urban Ceiling.

15. Thus, it is beyond doubt that possession of the land in dispute stood
transferred to the respondents in pursuance of the possession memo dated
25.05.1992. Besides, the land in dispute was also recorded in the name of
Urban Ceiling in the revenue records way back in the year 1993, as per
own showing of the petitioners. Further, the petitioners have failed to
produce any evidence to demonstrate that they were in possession of the
land in dispute.

16. It is also relevant to state here that the petitioners after taking over of
possession on 25.05.1992 and mutation in the revenue records in the year
1993, for the first time on 07.02.2018 had filed a representation before
respondent no. 2 for recording the land in dispute in the name of the
petitioners in the revenue records, however, the same was rejected vide
order dated 21.02.2018. Hence, it is beyond doubt that the petitioners, for
the first time, approached the Competent Authority-respondent no. 2 after
                                                                                           WRIC No. 18859 of 2018
                                                                   6


                                    a lapse of about twenty six years since, the taking over of possession of
                                    the land in dispute by the respondents.

                                    17. As such, the present writ petition is also liable to be dismissed on the
                                    ground of delay in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the
                                    case of State of Assam Vs. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma & Ors., (2015) 5 SCC
                                    321 and Kapilaben Ambalal Patel & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.,
                                    (2021) 12 SCC 95, as well as by the coordinate Bench of this Court in
                                    Writ-C No. 38977 of 2022 (Mithai Lal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. &
                                    Ors.), decided on 16.02.2023, and in Writ-C No. 19612 of 2018
                                    (Kumbha Karan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.), decided on 25.03.2026.

                                    18. Under these circumstances, the writ petition lacks merit and is hereby
                                    dismissed. No order as to costs.

                                    19. The office is directed to return the original records received from the
                                    office of Competent Authority, Urban Ceiling, Kanpur to the office of
                                    learned Chief Standing Counsel forthwith.



                                                              (Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)
                                    September 15, 2026
                                    Gaurav




Digitally signed by :-
GAURAV PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad