Allahabad High Court

GYAN PRAKASH MAURYA AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 13 September 2026
Disposal: Dismiss other than merit(DD/Non Prosec./Abated)
Bench: SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN SARAL SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The writ petition is dismissed as the petitioners’ claim is barred by delay and laches and the earlier proceedings under the Act are upheld.

Summary

The petitioners, heirs of Bhagwan Das, sought to have a parcel of land recorded in their names under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, after the original owner’s death in 1978. They contended that the ex‑parte proceedings and notices issued under Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Act were invalid because they were served on a deceased person and that the land should be restored to them. The respondents argued that the proceedings were valid, that Section 15 of the Act bars any benefit to the heirs of a deceased landholder, and that possession had been taken by the State in 1987 with the land mutated to the State in 1989. The court examined the procedural history, noting that the petitioners had been aware of the State’s possession and the revenue mutation, had filed objections in 1989, an appeal was dismissed in 1992, and only after a further twelve‑year delay filed a representation in 2004. Finding the petitioners’ claim to be barred by laches and delay, and that the earlier orders were not void, the court dismissed the writ petition. Consequently, the petitioners were not granted any relief to alter the revenue record.

Issues considered

Whether ex‑parte proceedings and notices issued under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, against a deceased landholder are void.
Whether the heirs of the deceased landholder are entitled to have the land recorded in their names under the Act.
Whether the delay of more than a decade bars the petitioners from obtaining relief under Article 226.
Whether Section 15 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, precludes any benefit to the heirs of a deceased owner.

Legislation cited

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 — s. 10(1), 10(3), 10(5), 15, 33, 6(1), 8(3), 8(4), 9
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999

Subjects

Urban Land Ceiling Act
mutation of land
ex‑parte order
death of landholder
delay
laches
Article 226
revenue record

Judgment

Reserved On: 19.08.2026
Delivered On: 14.09.2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 34624 of 2008

Gyan Prakash Maurya And Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashutosh, Praveen Kumar Srivastava,
Rama Shanker Mishra, Sushil Kumar
Srivastava, Vishwa Pratap Singh
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 learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

2. The present writ petition has been filed being aggrieved by the order
dated 25.02.2008 passed by Competent Authority, Bareilly -respondent
no. 2, by means of which the representation of the petitioner for recording
the land in dispute in the name of petitioners in the revenue records has
been rejected. Besides, a direction has also been sought to record the
name of the petitioners in the revenue record in respect of the land in
dispute in place of State, and also to restrain the respondents from
dispossessing the petitioners from the land in dispute.

3. The present proceedings arise under the Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act, 1976,(hereinafter referred to as," the Act of 1976"). The
land in dispute measuring 2815.56 sq m of which an area of 2,782.12 sq
m is comprised in Gata No. 171 in village Jasoli and 33.44 sq m is
comprised in Gata No. 260 in village Benipur Chaudhry both situated in
District Bareilly. The original landholder of the land in dispute was
Bhagwan Das, the father of the petitioners. Bhagwan Das, in his lifetime,
had filed a ceiling return under Section 6(1), Bhagwan Das passed away
on 19.02.1978.

4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the notice under Section
8(3)was never served upon the petitioners. Further, the order under
WRIC No. 34624 of 2008
2

Section 8(4) is an ex parte order passed against a dead person. No notice
under Section 9, Section 10(1),Section 10(3) and Section 10(5) was ever
served upon the petitioners, and as such, the entire proceedings under the
Act, 1976 were vitiated being against a dead person and are a nullity in
the eyes of law. Subsequently, on the basis of the ex-parte proceedings,
the land in dispute was recorded in the name of the State in the year 1989.

5. As such the petitioners continued to remain in possession of the land in
dispute and were entitled to remain so, by virtue of the provisions of the
Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Repeal Act, 1999 . However, the
petitioners, on coming to know about the mutation in the revenue entries
in the name of the State, had filed a representation dated 20.12.2004
before the Competent Authority-respondent no. 2 for expunging the
revenue entries in the name of State and recording the land in dispute in
the name of the petitioners, however, the respondent No. 2 vide the
impugned order dated 25.02.2008 had rejected the representation of the
petitioner on the ground that proceedings for taking possession of land in
dispute had already taken place on 22.09.1987.

5. Per contra, it has been contended on behalf of the respondents that the
entire proceedings had been conducted in due accordance with the
provisions of the Act, 1976, and as such there was no infirmity in the
same. The petitioners would not be entitled to any benefit of the demise of
the original landholder, Bhagwan Das, in view of the provisions of
Section 15 of the Act, 1976. Further, possession of land in dispute has
already been taken on 22.09.1987 by means of a dakhalnama /possession
memo. The petitioners themselves admit that land in dispute was recorded
in the name of State in 1989 in the revenue records. Hence, even
otherwise, the petitioner admittedly having approached Competent
Authority for the first time in 2004, after a lapse of seventeen years from
the date of taking over the possession of the land in dispute, hence the
present petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.

6. We have perused the records of the case as well as the original records
summoned from the office of the Competent Authority, Bareilly. The
perusal of the records reveals that that after passing of the order under
Section 8(4), notice under Section 9 was issued on 9.1.1981 .
Subsequently, notification under Section 10(1)and Section 10(3)were
issued on 24.06.83 and 20.03.1986 respectively. Thereafter notice under
WRIC No. 34624 of 2008
3

Section 10(5) was issued on 25.2.1987, and the possession of the land in
dispute was taken by means of a dakhalnama on 22.09.1987 in the
presence of two witnesses. Besides, the land in dispute was also recorded
in the revenue records in the name of the State on 07.07.1989.

7. Subsequently, the petitioners, including petitioner no. 2, who himself is
a practicing advocate, had filed an application dated 12.07.1989 for
dropping of the proceedings under the Act, 1976 in respect of the land in
dispute. Thereafter, the Competent Authority, on the basis of the
objections, by means of an order dated 26.09.1989, had held 2,879.79 sq
m of land as excess vacant . An application dated 19.10.1989 for recall of
the order dated 26.09.1989 was subsequently filed by Khemanand
Maurya, petitioner no. 2. However, the application for recall was also
rejected by means of the order dated 04.11.1989. The petitioners had
thereafter filed an appeal under Section 33 of the Act, 1976, before
District Judge, Bareilly, registered as Urban Ceiling Appeal No. 3 of
1990. However, the aforesaid appeal was also dismissed in default on
11.02.1992.

8. Hence, the petitioners had due knowledge about the proceedings under
the Act, 1976 as well as entries being made in the name of the State on
07.07.1989, but it is only after passage of twelve years from the dismissal
of the appeal, that the petitioners had filed a representation dated 20.12.20
04 before the Competent Authority-respondent No. 2, which has been
rejected by means of the impugned order, dated 25.01.2008.The
averments made in paragraph 17 of the writ petition are relevant in this
regard, and the same read as under:-

"17. That respondents on the basis of ex-parte order dated 24.07.1981 against the
dead person illegally expunged the name of petitioners father in revenue record and
incorporated the name of state in revenue record in year 1989. The petitioners have
no knowledge about the mutation proceeding of the said land. In year 2004 petitioner
know that the name of the petitioners’ father was expunged from the revenue record
and incorporated in the name of State Government in place of petitioners father.
Thereafter petitioners filed application dated 20.12.2004 to the Competent Authority,
Urban Land Ceiling, Additional District Magistrate, Bareilly. True copy of
application 20.12.2004 made by the petitioners is being filed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE NO.2 to this writ petitioner"
WRIC No. 34624 of 2008
4

9. Thus, the petitioners very conveniently, in the entire writ petition, had
concealed the very material facts of having filed objections before the C
ompetent Authority and the same having been decided by means of the
order dated 26.09.1989, thereafter the petitioners filed an application for
recall, and the same was rejected on 04.11.1989. The petitioners
subsequently filed an appeal before the District Judge, Bareilly that too
was dismissed in the year 1992 . Thus, it is beyond doubt that the
petitioners have not approached this court with clean hands and are not
entitled to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

10. Further, the records also reveal that the petitioners, after dismissal of
the appeal by the District Judge, Bareilly on 11.02.1992, had very
conveniently slept over the matter, and it is only on 20.12.2004, after a
passage of more than twelve years thereafter, that the petitioners had filed
a representation before the Competent Authority- respondent No. 2,
which has been rejected by means of the impugned order dated
25.01.2008 and the petitioners have now approached this Court by means
of the present petition. Hence, it is beyond doubt that the present petition
is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches having
been filed after a lapse of nineteen years from the date of handing over the
possession of the land in dispute.

11. Thus, the present writ petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed.

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

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

Digitally signed by :-
NADEEM AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…