HARISH CHANDRA AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

                                                        Reserved on 09.07.2026
                                                       Delivered on 14.09.2026
         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - C No. - 27284 of 2015

Harish Chandra And 3 Others
                                                             .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus

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

Counsel for Petitioner(s)       : Harish Kumar Yadav, Ram Swaroop
                                  Singh, Shivakant Singh
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 learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for
the State respondents and Sri Abhinava Krishna Srivastava, learned
counsel for the respondent no.4.

2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the
respondents to expunge the revenue entries in the name of the State in
respect of the land in dispute and to record the same in the name of the
petitioners and also to restrain the respondents from dispossessing the
petitioners from the land in dispute.

3. The present controversy arises from proceedings under the Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act,
1976”). The land in dispute is comprised in Plot No. 81, having an area of
0.068 hectare, Plot No. 83, having an area of 0.103 hectare, and Plot No.
80, having an area of 0.0114 hectare, situated in Village Umarpur Neva,
Tehsil Chayal, District Allahabad.

4. The facts involved in the present writ petition are that Sukh Dev was
the original landholder of the land in dispute and had filed a ceiling return
under Section 6(1), registered as Ceiling Case No. 4341 of 1976 (State
Vs. Sukh Dev). Subsequently, notice under Section 8(3) was issued on
                                                        WRIC No. 27284 of 2015
                                2


05.09.1977 and, consequently, by means of the order dated 06.10.1978
passed under Section 8(4) of the Act, 1976, 1725.78 hectares of land was
declared as excess vacant land. Subsequently, notice under Section 9 and
notifications under Sections 10(1) and 10(3) were published in the State
Gazette. Notice under Section 10(5) was issued on 28.08.1990 and served
upon Phool Chandra, petitioner no. 3. Thereafter, the land was recorded in
the name of the State in the revenue records on 05.09.1995. Notice under
Section 11(8) in respect of Sandeh Dhanrashi/compensation was issued
on 30.11.1996 and objections dated 26.12.1996 were filed by the
landholders in response to the same, which were rejected by the
competent authority vide order dated 15.03.1997.

5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that after the
demise of their father, Sukh Dev, the original landholder, the petitioners
are in possession of the land in dispute. Further, the petitioners at no point
of time voluntarily surrendered the land in pursuance of the notice under
Section 10(5). Besides, no proceedings under Section 10(6) had ever
taken place. Hence, the petitioners, being in possession of the land in
dispute, are entitled to the benefit of Section 3 of the Urban Land (Ceiling
and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “the Repeal
Act, 1999”). Further, the petitioners have repeatedly approached the
District Magistrate, Allahabad-respondent no. 2, for expunging the name
of the State from the revenue records, but the same has been of no avail,
and hence the petitioners have been constrained to approach this Court. It
is also contended that the original landholder, Sukh Dev, had passed away
prior to the issuance of notice under Section 10(5) and, as such, the same
is a nullity in the eyes of law.

6. Per contra, it is contended on behalf of the State-respondents that the
proceedings under the Act, 1976 stood concluded and possession of the
land in dispute was transferred to the representative of the District
Magistrate on 14.11.1990. Further, the land in dispute was recorded in the
name of the State in the revenue records on 05.09.1995. Besides, after
taking over possession of the land in dispute, notice under Section 11(8)
determining the Sandeh Dhanrashi/compensation was also issued on
30.11.1996 and the petitioners had filed their objections dated 26.12.1996,
which were decided by the competent authority on 15.03.1997.
                                                              WRIC No. 27284 of 2015
                                      3


7. Under these circumstances, it is stated that the proceedings under the
Act, 1976 stood concluded much prior to the enforcement of the Repeal
Act, 1999 and the possession of the land in dispute stood transferred to
the State. Further the petitioners are very much aware about the said fact
but had never objected to the same.

8. It is also contended that the present writ petition has been filed after a
lapse of about 37 years from the date when the land was declared vacant
and 25 years from the date of taking over physical possession of the land
and, as such, is liable to be dismissed solely on the ground of delay.
Respondent no. 4-Authority has supported the stand so taken by the State-
respondents.

9. We have perused the records of the case and find that the petitioners
themselves admit that the notice dated 28.08.1990 under Section 10(5)
was served upon Phool Chandra-petitioner no. 3, son of Sukh Dev, on
14.11.1990. In this regard, the contention of the petitioners that service of
notice on petitioner no. 3 would not amount to effective service under
Section 10(5), as the original landholder, Sukh Dev, had passed away, is
also erroneous, in view of the fact that the petitioners themselves admit
that they were in possession of the land in dispute after the demise of
Sukh Dev. In this regard, the provisions of Section 10(5) of the Act, 1976
are relevant and read as under:-

“Section 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.

(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 Government or
to any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf within thirty
days of the service of the notice.”

10. Thus, the notice issued under Section 10(5) is to be served upon any
person who may be in possession of the land in dispute and, in the present
case, the petitioners were admittedly in possession of the land in dispute
at the time of issuance of notice under Section 10(5).

11. Further, it is the specific case of the respondents that possession of the
                                                                        WRIC No. 27284 of 2015
                                         4


land in dispute was taken over on 14.11.1990 after service of notice upon
petitioner no. 3. In this regard, the contents of paragraph no. 3 of the
counter affidavit of the State are relevant and read as under:-

“3. यह कि नगर भूमि (अधिकतम सीमा एवं विनियमन) अधिनियम, 1976 की धारा 6 (1) के अन्तर्गत भू-
धारक द्वारा विवरण पत्र संख्या-4341/1976 सरकार बनाम सुखदेव, निवासी कन्धईपुर, तहसील सदर,
इलाहाबाद दाखिल की गयी थी। जिस पर अधिनियम के प्राविधानानुसार धारा 8 (4) के अन्तर्गत दिनांक
06.10.1978 को आदेश पारित करते हुये भू-धारक को 1735.78 वर्ग मीटर भूमि सीमाधिक्य रिक्त घोषित की
गयी थी। तत्पश्चात् अधिनियम की धारा-09, 10(1), 10 (3) की कार्यवाही सम्पादित की गयी। इस प्रकार
अधिनियम की धारा-10 (3) के प्रकाशन के दिनांक 05.02.1990 से प्रश्नगत प्रकरण की सीमाधिक्य रिक्त
भूमि समस्त भारों से मुक्त होकर राज्य सरकार में पूर्णरूप से निहित हो गयी। तदोपरान्त दिनांक 28.08.1990
को धारा 10(5) के अन्तर्गत कब्जा सौंपने विषयक नोटिस निर्गत की गयी। सीमाधिक्य रिक्त भूमि का कब्जा
सक्षम प्राधिकारी के प्रतिनिधि द्वारा जिलाधिकारी के प्रतिनिधि को दिनांक 14.11.1990 को हस्तांतरित किया
गया। राजस्व अभिलेख खतौनी 1404 फसली में राज्य सरकार सीलिंग का नाम दर्ज किया गया। अधिनियम
की धारा 11(8) की नोटिस दिनांक 30.11.1996 को निर्गत की गयी, जिसके विरूद्ध भू-धारक द्वारा दिनांक
26.12.1996 को आपत्ति दाखिल की गयी। तत्कालीन सक्षम प्राधिकारी द्वारा दिनांक 15.03.1997 को
आपत्ति निरस्त कर दिया गया।"

12. The petitioners, in response thereto, in paragraph no. 5 of their
rejoinder affidavit have stated as under:-

“5. That the contents of para no.3 of the Counter-Affidavit filed on behalf of
respondent nos.2 and 3 are not correct, as stated, hence are denied, because the Case
No.4341/1976 (State of U.P. Versus Sukhdev) was initiated in the name of sole tenure
holder (Sukhdev) father of petitioners, but during further proceedings of aforesaid
Case No.4341/1976 u/s 10(3) and 10(5) of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act
1976, sole tenure holder (Sukhdev) died and he was no more which proves that more
proceedings of the aforesaid Case No.4341/1976 were proceeded against the dead
person then the proceedings of the Case No.4341/1976 (State Vs. Sukhdev) will be
nullity.”

13. Thus, there is no denial regarding the handing over of possession of
the land on 14.11.1990 and the proceedings in respect of determination of
Sandeh Dhanrashi/compensation under Section 11 of the Act thereafter.

14. It is relevant to point out here that according to the petitioners the
original landholder, Sukhdev passed away on 15.07.1990, after the
publication of notice under Section 10(3) of the Act, 1976. Thereafter
petitioner no.3 was served upon the notice under Section 10(5) dated
28.08.1990 besides the petitioners also filed objections dated 26.12.1996
to the determination of Sandeh Dhanrashi under Section 11(8). However,
the petitioners never raised objections to the proceedings under the Act,
1976 regarding the proceedings being continued against a dead person
Pyare Lal. Hence, raising the plea regarding the death of Sukh Dev about
                                                                                          WRIC No. 27284 of 2015
                                                                   5


                                    20 years thereafter by means of the present writ petition cannot be
                                    entertained.

                                    15. The petitioners themselves admit the fact that entries in the revenue
                                    records in respect of the land in dispute were made on 05.09.1995, the
                                    petitioners having relied upon the revenue records in the writ petition.
                                    Thus, admittedly, the notice under Section 10(5) was served upon
                                    petitioner no. 3 on 14.11.1990 and the revenue entries were mutated in the
                                    name of the State on 05.09.1995. Therefore, it cannot be said that the
                                    petitioners were not aware of the proceedings under the Act, 1976.

                                    16. Under these circumstances, there is no valid reason to doubt the fact
                                    that possession of the land in dispute stood transferred to the respondents
                                    much prior to the enforcement of the Repeal Act, 1999. Further, the
                                    petitioners have failed to produce any evidence in support of their
                                    contention that they continued to remain in possession of the land in
                                    dispute.

                                    17. Furthermore, the present writ petition has been filed after a lapse of
                                    about 25 years from the date of service of notice under Section 10(5)
                                    upon the petitioners on 14.11.1990. Hence, even otherwise, the present
                                    writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay in view of
                                    the law laid down by the Supreme Court in 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.




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




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