PYARE LALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

                                                       Reserved on 20.08.2026
                                                      Delivered on 14.09.2026
         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - C No. - 2664 of 2020

Pyare Lal
                                                            .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                          .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)       : Kamlesh Kumar, Rajesh Nath Tripathi,
                                  Sanjay Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s)       : Abhinava Krishna Srivastava, C.S.C.,
                                  Ram Raj Singh

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

             (Delivered by Hon’ble Sudhanshu Chauhan J.)

1. Heard Sri Sudeep Dwivedi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sanjay
Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Abhinava Krishna
Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.


2. The present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated
13.03.2018 passed by District Magistrate-respondent no. 2, by means of
which the representation of the petitioner for restoration of the name of
the petitioner in the revenue records pursuant to, the Urban Land (Ceiling
and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, has been rejected. Further, a direction
has been sought to the respondents to exempt the land in dispute from
urban ceiling and to restore the revenue entries in the name of petitioner.


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 measuring about 12901.65 sq m
comprised in arazi no. 195(part) and arazi no. 559 situated in village Mad
auka, Tehsil Karchhana, District Allahabad, now Prayagraj.


4. The contention of the petitioner is that notice under Section 8(3) in
                                                       WRIC No. 2664 of 2020
                               2


respect of the land in dispute was never served upon the petitioner.
Subsequently, the order under Section 8(4) dated 05.10.1982 was passed
ex-parte. The notification under Section 10(3) of the Act, 1976 was issued
on 24.05.1996. Thereafter, notice under Section 10(5) was issued on
25.5.1996 but was never served on the petitioner. No proceedings under
Section 10(6) of the Act, 1976 had ever taken place and under the
circumstances, the petitioner continued to remain in possession of the
land in dispute. Besides, the petitioner claims parity with other similarly
situated tenure holders, where the notice under Section 10(5) was issued
but was never served upon them and consequently, the Competent
Authority had released their land from ceiling proceedings in view of the
provisions of the Repeal Act, 1999. The petitioner, though, does not
dispute the fact that the entries in the revenue records in respect of the
land in dispute are in the name of the State, having been recorded, on
10.07.1997, however, it is stated that the petitioner was not aware of the
same, and on coming to know about the same in the year 2017, the
petitioner had filed a representation for correction of revenue entries.

5. Further, the petitioner had filed Writ C No. 49414 of 2017 which was
disposed of vide judgment and order dated 30.10.2017 directing
respondent No. 2 to decide the representation of the petitioner for
restoration of the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. In
pursuance thereto the respondent No. 2 by impugned order dated
13.03.2018 had rejected the representation of the petitioner, which is
under challenge in the present writ petition. Further, the perusal of the
impugned order reveals that it is non-speaking and only provides that
notice under Section 10(3) was published on 23.3.1996, and the notice
under Section 10(5) was issued on 25.5.1996. However, the impugned
order does not speak anything about the service of notice under Section
10(5) on the petitioner and the date on which the possession of the land in
dispute was transferred to the State. Moreover, there is no mention of any
proceedings under Section 10(6) in the impugned order, thereby
demonstrating that no such exercise was undertaken. Hence, it is amply
clear from the perusal of the order that the possession of the land in
dispute was never transferred to the respondent.

6. On the contrary, it is contended on behalf of the respondents-State that
                                                       WRIC No. 2664 of 2020
                               3


the petitioner had filed a ceiling return under Section 6(1) registered as
Ceiling Case No. K-3522/1976. Subsequently, notice under Section 8(3)
was issued on 21.11.1981. However, as no objections were filed by the
petitioner, order under Section 8(4) was passed on 05.10.1982, which was
followed by notice dated 07.07.1984 containing final statement under
Section 9. Notification under Section 10(1) and Section 10(3) of the Act,
1976 were published in the State Gazette on 06.03.1986 and 23.03.1996,
respectively. Thereafter notice under Section 10(5) for handing over the
possession of the land in dispute was issued on 25.05.1996. Pursuant
thereto, the land in dispute was recorded in the name of the State in the
revenue records. Further, in terms of the government order dated
11.12.1996, the land in dispute was transferred to Prayagrai Development
Authority. Thus, the proceedings under the Act, 1976 stood concluded
much prior to enforcement of the Repeal Act, 1999. It is also contended,
the petitioner had due knowledge about the proceedings under the Act
1976 but had never objected to the same. The respondent no. 4-authority
has supported the stand so taken by the State.

7. We have perused the records of the case as well as the original records
summoned from the office of the Competent Authority, respondent No. 3.
The perusal of the original records reveals that although the proceedings
under the Act, 1976, had duly taken place. However, as far as the notice
under Section 10(5) is concerned, the same has only been signed by the
Competent Authority-respondent No. 3, on 24.5.1996, however, it does
not bear the signature of any other officer or the date on which the notice
was issued and was served upon the petitioner. Apparently, the perusal of
the notice under Section 10(5) reveals that, although the same was
prepared but was never issued for the purpose of serving the same upon
the petitioner. Further, no proceedings under Section 10(6) of the
Act,1976 have taken place . Thus, there is nothing on record to show as to
when the notice under Section 10(5) was issued and served upon the
petitioner.

8. Further, this Court had directed the learned counsel for respondent No.
4-authority to bring on record the factual report in respect of the present
status of the land in dispute. In pursuance thereto, a report dated
19.08.2026 has been placed before this Court and the same is taken on
                                                                         WRIC No. 2664 of 2020
                                           4


record, wherein it is stated as under :-

"तत्सम्बन्ध में स्वकीय निर्देश के अनुपालन में क्षेत्रीय लेखपाल के साथ संयक्त
                                                                           ु निरीक्षण/जाँच की गयी
लोचोपरान्त अवगत कराना है कि संदर्भित आराजियों की क्षेत्रीय लेखपाल एवं प्राधिकरण लख्खपाल से संयुक्त
स्थलीय जॉच करायी गयी। जिससे स्पष्ट होता है कि :-



1. संदर्भित भूमि सीलिंग के अर्न्तगत है।



2. उक्त भूमि प्राधिकरण की योजना के निकट एवं प्राधिकरण के कब्जे में है।



3. स्थलीय जाँच के अनुसार संदर्भित स्थल / भूमि रिक्त है।



आख्या अग्रिम आदेशार्थ प्रस्तुत।"




9. Thus, from the report, it is evident that the land in dispute does not lie
under any scheme of the respondent No. 4-authority and is presently lying
vacant. The fact that the land in dispute does not come under any scheme
of the respondent no.4-authority, despite it’s possession having been
allegedly handed over more than 30 years ago and continues to remain
vacant, creates serious doubts about the respondents being in possession
of the land in dispute and fortifies the contention of the petitioner that the
possession of the land was never handed over to the respondents.

10. The petitioner in support of his claim has further relied upon the
orders passed by the Competent Authority-respondent No. 3, wherein the
land of tenure holders situated in Tehsil Karchhana, District Allahabad
was released on the ground that, although proceedings up to the stage of
Section 10(5) under the Act,1976 had taken place but there was no
evidence on record to demonstrate that the possession of the land in
dispute in the said cases, had been handed over by the tenure holders to
the State. In one of the cases, the Competent Authority had further relied
upon the law laid down by Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v.
Hariram, 2013 (4) SCC 280 and had went on to hold that the facts of the
case were duly covered under the law so laid down. We are of the view
                                                         WRIC No. 2664 of 2020
                                5


that the facts of the case of the petitioner whereto no notice under Section
10(5) and Section 10(6) has been issued are similar to those relied upon
by the petitioner.

11. We have also perused the impugned order dated 13.03.2018, which
only states that notification under Section 10(3) was published in the State
Gazette on 23.03.1996 and a notice under Section 10(5) was issued on
25.05.1996 and subsequently, the possession of land in dispute was
transferred to the Allahabad Development Authority, as such the
proceedings under the Act, 1976, stood concluded much prior to the
enforcement of the Repealing Act, 1999. However, the notice fails to spell
out as to when the notice under Section 10(5) was served upon the
petitioner.

12. In view of such facts as detailed above, it can very well be concluded
that the possession of the land in dispute was never transferred to the
State and the same remained with the petitioner. Under these
circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to remain in possession of the land
in dispute by virtue of the provisions of the Repeal Act, 1999. Moreover,
the case of the petitioner is duly covered under the law laid down by the
Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Hariram, 2013 (4) SCC 280,
A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation v. Tehsildar and others, 2025
SCC OnLine SC 447, and Dalsukhbhai Bachubhai Satasia and others v.
State of Gujarat and others, AIR 2026 SC 475 , wherein amongst others
the service of notice under Section 10(5) and Section 10(6), as the case
may be has been held to be mandatory.

13. Further, we are also of the view that there is no delay on the part of
the petitioner in approaching this court in view of the fact that the present
petition has been filed shortly after the representation of the petitioner for
recording his in the revenue records in respect of the land in dispute has
been rejected by the District Magistrate-respondent no. 2 by means of the
impugned order dated 13.03.2018. Moreover, no material has been placed
on record to demonstrate that the petitioner had due knowledge of the
proceedings under Act, 1976 but had intentionally avoided contesting the
same. Hence, the petitioner being in possession of the land in dispute had
approached this Court after coming to know of mutation in the revenue
records, and consequently the present writ petition cannot be dismissed on
                                                                                            WRIC No. 2664 of 2020
                                                                   6


                                    the ground of delay.

                                    14. Thus, in view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed and a
                                    direction is issued to the District Magistrate, Prayagraj - respondent no. 2
                                    to expunge the entries in the name of the Competent Authority in the
                                    revenue records and further to record the same in the name of the
                                    petitioner within a period of three months from production of certified
                                    copy of this order.

                                    15. The office is directed to return original records of Ceiling Case No.
                                    3522/76, received from the office of the Competent Authority, Urban
                                    Land Ceiling, Prayagraj to the office of learned Chief Standing Counsel
                                    forthwith.




                                                              (Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)
                                    September 14, 2026
                                    Gaurav




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