Allahabad High Court

RAM LAKHANversusSTATE OF U.P. and OTHERS

Decided: 14 September 2026
Disposal: Dismiss other than merit(DD/Non Prosec./Abated)
Bench: SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN SARAL SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The court held that the notice under Section 10(5) was not served, possession was never transferred to the State, and the petitioner therefore remains in possession of the land.

Summary

The petitioner, Ram Lakhan, filed a writ petition seeking correction of revenue records and a restraining order against the State of Uttar Pradesh concerning a 13,427.58 sq.m. parcel of land originally held by his predecessor Jagannath. The land was declared excess vacant under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, and a notice under Section 10(5) was purportedly issued in 1981, but the court found no evidence that this notice was served or that possession was transferred to the State. The petitioner argued that the land remained in his name in revenue records up to 2009 and that he remained in possession, while the State contended that possession had been handed over in 1981 and that the petition was barred by delay. The court held that the notice was not served, no possession was handed over, and there was no actionable delay, thus the petitioner retained possession under the Repeal Act. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, directing the District Magistrate to expunge the State’s name from the revenue entries and restore the petitioner’s title.

Issues considered

Whether the notice under Section 8(3) and Section 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was validly served on the petitioner or his predecessor.
Whether possession of the disputed land was lawfully transferred to the State under the Act.
Whether the petitioner’s delay of approximately 29 years bars the relief sought.
Effect of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 on the title and possession of the land.
Whether the revenue records should be corrected to reflect the petitioner’s ownership.

Legislation cited

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 — s. 10(1), 10(3), 10(5), 10(6), 11(8), 33, 6(1), 8(3), 8(4), 9
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999

Subjects

Urban land ceiling
Revenue records
Possession
Notice service
Repeal Act
Writ petition
Delay
Mutation

Judgment

Reserved on 11.08.2026

Delivered on 15.09.2026

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 321 of 2010

Ram Lakhan
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : P.K. Singh, R.C. Maurya, Raj Karan
Yadav, Shamsher Bahadur Maurya
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

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

HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhanshu Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri R.C. Maurya, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction for the
respondents to correct the revenue records in respect of the land in dispute
and also to restrain the respondents from interfering in possession of the
petitioner over the land in dispute.

3. The present controversy arises out of proceedings under Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act,
1976). The land in dispute is 13427.58 sq.m. of land comprised in Arazi
No. 423, 424, 429, 430, 491, 500, 734M, 759 and 760 situated in Mauza
Akatha, Pargana Shivpur, District Varanasi.

4. The original land holder of the land in dispute was Jagannath son of
Ram Swaroop, the father of the petitioner. Jagannath had filed a ceiling
return under Section 6(1) of the Act, 1976. Subsequently, notice under
Section 8(3) was issued on 27.05.1977 and 16.03.1978. As no objections
were filed, the Competent Authority vide the order dated 29.03.1978 had
WRIC No. 321 of 2010
2

declared the land in dispute as excess vacant. Subsequently, notice under
Section 9 was issued followed by notification under Sections 10(1) and
10(3), which were published in the State gazette on 26.12.1978 and
17.10.1981 respectively. Thereafter, notice under Section 10(5) of the
Act, 1976 was issued on 30.11.1981. An appeal under Section 33 of the
Act was filed registered as Appeal No. 68/2001 (Ram Lakhan Vs. State of
U.P.) but the appeal was dismissed on 29.08.2001 on account of
enforcement of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Repeal Act, 1999).

5. The contention of the petitioner is that the predecessor of the petitioner,
Jagannath had never received the notice under Section 8(3) and the order
dated 19.03.1978 passed under Section 8(4) is an ex-parte order. Further,
the petitioner was never served with the notice under Section 10(5). The
respondents at no point of time had taken the possession of the land in
dispute as there is no dakhalnama/possession memo issued under Section
10(5) of the Act, 1976. Further, no proceedings under Section 10(6) of the
Act, 1976 had ever been initiated, hence, the question of handing over or
taking the possession of the land in dispute does not arise. It is further
contended that the land in dispute continued to be recorded in the name of
the petitioner in the revenue records much after the enforcement of the
Repeal Act, 1999 in the revenue records. The petitioner in this regard has
relied upon the revenue record for the Fasli year 1408-1413, where the
land in dispute is recorded in the name of the petitioner. Further the
petitioner has relied upon the Khasra for Fasli year 1416 where also the
land in dispute is shown to be recorded in the name of the petitioner.
Thus, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that as the petitioner was
in possession of the land in dispute at the time of the enforcement of the
Repeal Act, 1999, hence, the petitioner is entitled to remain in possession
thereof.

6. Per contra, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that the
proceedings under the Act, 1976 stood concluded much prior to the
enforcement of the Repeal Act, 1999. The predecessor of the petitioner,
Jagannath had handed over the possession of the land in dispute to the
respondents in pursuance to the notice under Section 10(5) issued on
30.11.1981. Further, it is alleged that the order for mutation of the
WRIC No. 321 of 2010
3

revenue entries was issued on 06.02.1993. Thus, even if there is some
delay in the mutation of the revenue entries, the petitioner would not be
entitled for any benefit of the same. Besides, it is the respondents who are
in possession of the land in dispute and the present writ petition has been
filed after a delay of about 29 years from handing over of possession of
the land in dispute and as such is liable to be dismissed on the ground of
delay.

7. This Court has perused the original records of the Ceiling Case No.
206/33/25/76-77 (State Vs. Jagannath) and the same reveals that no notice
under Section 8(3) was issued to the original land holder Jagannath.
Although the notice under Section 10(5) dated 30.11.1981 has been
prepared after a publication of notification under Sections 10(1) and 10(3)
of the Act, 1976, there is nothing on record to show that the notice under
Section 10(5) had ever been served upon the petitioner or his predecessor.
Although the possession memo had been prepared but it does not bear the
signature of any officer from the office of District Magistrate. Thus, it is
evident that the notice under Section 10(5) was not served on the
petitioner or his predecessor and no dakhalnama/possession memo was
issued pursuant thereto. Further, no proceedings have been initiated under
Section 10(6) of the Act, 1976.

8. Although the determination regarding the amount payable towards
sandeya dhanrashi/compensation has been made on 30.01.1981, there is
noting on record to demonstrate that any notice has been issued to the
petitioner or his predecessor under Section 11(8), thereby providing an
opportunity to object to the determination of the sandeya dhanrashi. Thus,
from the perusal of the records, it is evident that there is nothing on record
to demonstrate that the possession of the land in dispute has been taken by
the respondents.

9. In this regard the claim of the petitioner is further fortified by the fact
that in the Khasra upto Fasli year 1416 (corresponding year 2009 CE), the
land in dispute continued to be recorded in the name of the petitioner.
Although, the respondents claim that an order for mutating the revenue
entries in the name of the State in respect of the land in dispute was issued
on 06.02.1993, however, the same would be inconsequential in view of
the fact that the petitioner would have come to know regarding the
WRIC No. 321 of 2010
4

mutation only after the land in dispute is recorded in the name of State in
the revenue records. Even otherwise, if the contention of the respondents
is taken to be correct, then the possession of the land was handed over to
the respondents on 30.11.1981, hence, we fail to understand as to why the
revenue entries were not mutated in the name of the State even after a
passage of 28 years, till the time of filing of the present writ petition.

10. As far as the question of delay in filing the present writ petition,
which has been raised by the respondents, this Court is of the view that
the possession of the land in dispute was never handed over to the State in
pursuance to the notice under Section 10(5), as would be evident from the
records. The notice under Section 10(5) dated 30.11.1981 was also not
served upon the petitioner or his predecessor. The record further reveals
that the revenue entries continued in the name of the petitioner upto year
2009 CE, if not later. Thus, as the petitioner was in possession of the land
in dispute and the revenue entries were also in the name of the petitioner
in respect of the land in dispute, there was no occasion that the petitioner
to have approached this Court. The records reveal that entries in the name
of State were made some time in the year 2009 and the present writ
petition was filed in the year, 2010. Thus, this Court is of the view that
there is no delay in filing the present writ petition.

11. Thus, as the possession of the land in dispute was never handed over
to the respondents, hence, the petitioner is entitled to remain in possession
of the land in dispute by virtue of provisions of the Repeal Act, 1996.
Moreso, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
State of U.P. Vs. Hari Ram, reported in 2013 (4) SCC 280, A.P.
Electrical Equipment Corporation Vs. Tahsildar and others, 2025 SCC
Online SC 447 and Dalsukhbhai Bachubhai Satasia & others Vs. State
of Gujarat & others, 2026 SCC Online SC 25.

12. Under the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and a direction is
issued to the District Magistrate, Varanasi-respondent no. 4 to expunge
the name of State/Urban Ceiling in the revenue entries in respect of the
land in dispute and get the same recorded in the name of petitioner and
other land holders, if any, strictly in accordance with law in three months
from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
WRIC No. 321 of 2010
5

13. The office is directed to hand over the original records received from
the office of Competent Authority, Urban Ceiling, Varanasi to the office
of learned Chief Standing Counsel forthwith.

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

Digitally signed by :-
MOHAMMAD ARIF
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…