VINAY KUMAR NISHADversusSTATE 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. - 36451 of 2019

Vinay Kumar Nishad
                                                               .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus

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

Counsel for Petitioner(s)       : Anil Kumar Yadav, Raj Karan Yadav,
                                  Sarveshwari Prasad, Yadvendra Kumar
                                  Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)       : Abhinava Krishna Srivastava, C.S.C.,
                                  Devi Prasad Mishra, Harsh Vardhan
                                  Gupta

Court No. - 40
                 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
                 HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.
                 (Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.)

1. Heard Shri Raj Karan Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Shri Abhinava Krishna Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent
no.4 and learned Standing Counsel for State respondents.
2. The present petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the
respondents to abate the proceedings of Case No. 3977/1976( State
vs Ram Sharan)in respect of the land in dispute and arising out of
proceedings under the Urban Land ( Ceiling and Regulation) Act,
1976. Further, a direction has been sought to the respondents to
correct the entries in the revenue records and to record the same in
the name of the petitioner, and also to restrain the respondents from
interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land
in dispute.
3. The present proceedings arise under the Urban Land( Ceiling and
Regulation) Act, 1976, (herein after referred to as ,"the Act 1976") .
The land in dispute is 1,403.22 sq. m. of land comprised in Plot No.
223/1, village Chaka, district Allahabad, now Prayagraj.
4. The facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner, Ram
Sharan and the mother of petitioner, Meera Devi, had filed a ceiling
                                                   WRIC No. 36451 of 2019
                             2


return under Section 6(1), registered as Case No. 3977/1976.
Subsequently, notice under Section 8(3) was issued on 25.09.1979.
However, as no objections were filed by the original land holder, an
order under Section 8(4) was passed on 08.01.1980, declaring the
land in dispute as excess vacant. The same was followed by notice
under Section 9. The notification under Section 10(1) and Section
10(3) of the Act, 1976, was published in the State Gazette on
28.10.1989 and 22.02.1992 respectively. Thereafter, notice under
Section 10(5) was issued on 30.12.1992. Ultimately in pursuance of
the government order dated 11.12.1996, the land in dispute was
transferred to Prayagraj Development Authority-respondent no.4.
5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that no notice under
Section 8(3)was served upon the original landholders, and the notice
under Section 10(5) was also not served upon the landholders, as
would be evident from the report of the chain man/process server. It
is mandatory for the respondents to have communicated the order
passed under Section 8(4) to the predecessors of the petitioner, but
the same too was not done. As a consequence, the entire proceedings
under the Act, 1976 are vitiated. No proceedings had taken place
under Section 10(6) of the Act, 1976. Hence, the possession of the
land in dispute was never transferred to the respondents- State under
the provisions of the Act, 1976. The petitioner being in possession of
the land in dispute is entitled to remain in possession thereof by
virtue of the provisions of the Urban Land( Ceiling and Regulation)
Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ,"the Repeal Act, 1999
"). The petitioner, being the successor of the original landholders, is
in valid possession of the land in dispute, hence, the entries in the
revenue records ought to be corrected in the name of the petitioner
and the proceedings under the Act, 1976 be abated in view of Section
4 of the Repeal Act, 1999.
6. Per contra, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that the
notice under Section 8(3) was duly served upon the original
landholder on 07.10.1979. However, the original landholder willfully
had not filed any objections to the same,in this regard, a copy of the
service report has duly been placed before this Court. Besides, notice
                                                  WRIC No. 36451 of 2019
                             3


under Section 10(5) was issued on 30.12.1992 for voluntary handing
over of the possession of the land, and the same was duly served on
the original land holder. Subsequently, the land in dispute was
transferred to the respondent No. 4-authority and is presently in
possession of the respondent no.4 Thus, the proceedings under the
Act,1976 stood duly concluded much prior to the coming into force
of the Repeal Act, 1999. Further, the present controversy is covered
by the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of
Assam v. Bhaskar Jyoti Sharma, (2015) 5, SCC 321 and the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. We have perused the records of the case as well as the original
record summoned from the office of the Competent Authority-
respondent No. 3. The perusal of the record reveals that it is the
father of the petitioner, Ram Sharan who along with Smt. Meera
Devi, had filed the return under Section 6(1). Subsequently, the
notice under Section 8(3) was served upon Ram Sharan on
07.10.1979, and as no objections were filed, the order under Section
8(4) was passed on 08.01.1980. Thereafter, on completion of
proceedings under the Act, 1976, till the stage of Section 10(3), a
notice under Section 10(5) dated 28.10.1989 was prepared and was
issued on 30.12.1992. However, the service report dated 06.02.1993
of the chain man/ process server reveals that he could not find the
land holders for service of notice, and as such, the notice under
Section 10(5) remained unserved. The records further reveal that
thereafter no effort was made by the respondents for service of the
notice under Section 10(5) upon the land holders. Further, there is
nothing on record to show that the possession of the land in dispute
stood transferred to the respondents. Besides no proceedings under
Section 10 (6) ever took place.
8. It is pertinent to mention here that even in the pleadings of the
respondents, there is no mention of any date on which notice under
Section 10 (5) was served upon the petitioner. The records and
pleadings further reveal that no proceedings under Section 10(6) of
the Act, 1976, had ever taken place. Thus, the undisputed picture that
emerges is that, though a notice under Section 10(5) was issued on
                                                    WRIC No. 36451 of 2019
                              4


30.12.1992, it remained unserved upon the land holders.
9. In this regard, it is duly settled that the service of notice under
Section 10(5) or Section 10(6) of the Act, 1976, as the case maybe
upon the landholder is mandatory. Further, the burden lies upon the
State to prove that the possession of the land involved in the
proceedings under the Act 1976 stood transferred to the State, be it
by means of voluntary handing over of possession, under Section
10(5) or forceful possession, under Section 10(6) of the Act,1976. In
this regard, our view is further fortified by the law laid down by the
Apex Court in the case of State of UP vs Hari Ram, (2013) 4 SCC
280 , AP Electrical Equipment Corporation vs Tehsildar and
others, 2025 SCC Online SC 447 and Dalsukhbhai Bachubhai
Satasia and others vs State of Gujarat and others, AIR 2026 SC
475 and we are of the view that the present controversy is squarely
covered by the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above said
cases.
10. As far as the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
State of Assam vs Bhaskar Jyoti Sharma, ( 2015) 5 SCC 321
relied upon by the respondents is concerned ,we are afraid that the
said judgment of the Apex Court would not be applicable in the
present case. As in the case so relied upon by the respondents, the
possession had been taken without resorting to measures under
Section 10(5) of the Act, 1976, and there was a delay in challenging
the dispossession of the land holders, however, in the present case,
there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the possession of the
land in dispute was handed over to the respondents - State.Hence, the
facts of the present case are totally different from those in the case of
Bhaskar Jyoti Sharma (supra).
11. Under the circumstances, the present petition is allowed, and the
proceedings of Case No. 3977/1976 (State vs. Ram Sharan) are
abated. Further, the respondents are directed to expunge the name of
the State from the revenue records of the land in dispute and to
restore the same in the name of petitioner and other land holders, if
any, in due accordance with law, within a period of three months
from the date of production of a certified copy of this order .
                                                                                       WRIC No. 36451 of 2019
                                                                 5


                                    12. The office is directed to return the original records received from
                                    the office of Competent Authority, Urban Ceiling, Prayagraj 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