Allahabad High Court
RAM LAKHAN @ LAKHAN LALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that the petition lacks merit due to absence of locus standi and the bar of delay, and therefore dismissed it.
Summary
The petitioners sought a writ directing the State and other respondents to halt proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, to record the disputed 7,636.21 sq m land in their name, and to prevent interference with their possession. The land originally belonged to Moti Lal and Heera Lal, who had filed a ceiling return; notices under Sections 8(3) and 10(5) were allegedly not served, and the petitioners claimed the ex parte orders were void. The respondents contended that all procedural steps, including the issuance of the Section 10(5) notice on 28‑02‑1994 and recording in revenue records on 10‑01‑1996, were valid and that the petition was filed after an inordinate delay of about 22 years. The Court examined the genealogy, found the petitioners had no direct right or locus standi over the original owners' share, noted the affidavit was unsupported, and applied the Supreme Court’s precedent on delay. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ as lacking merit and ordered the return of original records.
Issues considered
- Does the petitioner have locus standi to challenge the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 concerning land originally held by Moti Lal and Heera Lal?
- Were the notices under Section 8(3) and Section 10(5) of the Act, 1976 validly served on the original landholders?
- Is the petition barred by limitation or inordinate delay?
- Should the land be recorded in the petitioner's name under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999?
Legislation cited
- Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 — s. 10(1), 10(3), 10(5), 10(6), 8(3), 8(4), 9
- Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999
Subjects
- Urban Land Ceiling Act
- possession
- locus standi
- ex parte order
- delay
- repeal act
- revenue records
- writ petition
Judgment
Reserved On:20.08.2026
Delivered On:15.09.2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 62508 of 2014
Ram Lakhan @ Lakhan Lal
…..Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 2 others
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Poonam Yadav, Raj Karan Yadav,
Yadvendra Kumar Yadav
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 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.
2. The present petition has been filed seeking a direction for the re-
spondents to abate the proceedings of Case No. K-2612/1976 (State v.
Moti Lal and Heera Lal), a direction is sought to record the entries in the
revenue records in respect of the land in dispute in the name of the peti-
tioner and also to direct the respondents not to interfere in the possession
of the petitioner over the land in dispute.
2
WRIC No. - 62508 of 2014
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 is 7,636.21 sq m comprised of various
plot numbers situated in Village Chaka, Tehsil Karchana, District Alla-
habad, now Prayagraj.
4. The facts of the case are that Moti Lal and Heera Lal were the
original land holders of the land in dispute and filed a ceiling return,
which was registered as case number K-2612/1976. Subsequently, notice
under Section 8(3) was issued on 8.05.1979. However, as no objections
were filed, order under Section 8(4) was passed on 31.03.1982. Notices
under Section 9 were issued on 13.08.1982. Thereafter, notifications un-
der Section 10(1) and under Section 10(3) were published in the State
Gazette on 06.04.1985 and 20.05.1986 respectively. The notice under
Section 10(5) was issued on 28.02.1994.
5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that no notice under Sec-
tion 8(3) was ever served on the original landholders, and the order
passed under Section 8(4) was an ex parte order. Further, notice under
Section 10(5) was also not served upon the original landholders. Be-
sides, no proceedings were initiated under Section 10(6) of the Act,
1976, and as such, the original landholders continued to remain in physi-
cal possession of the land in dispute. As possession was not taken under
the provisions of Section 10(5) and Section 10(6) of the Act, 1976, the
landholders are entitled to remain in possession of the land in dispute by
virtue of the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Re-
peal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as," the Repeal Act, 1999"). Fur-
ther, the respondents are forcibly trying to take possession of the land in
dispute from the petitioner in pursuance of the government order dated
08.05.2009. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to approach this
Court.
6. Per contra, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that the
proceedings under the Act, 1976 stood duly concluded much prior to the
coming into force of the Repeal Act, 1999. Further, the possession of the
3
WRIC No. - 62508 of 2014
land in dispute was taken by issuing a notice under Section 10(5) of the
Act 1976 on 28.02.1994. In pursuance thereto, the land in dispute was
also recorded in the name of Urban Land Ceiling in the revenue records
on 10.01.1996. Subsequently, the possession of the land in dispute was
transferred to Prayagraj Development Authority in pursuance of govern-
ment order dated 11.12.1996, and it is the respondent No. 4 -authority
which is in possession of the land in dispute. It is further contended that
the petitioner has no locus to file the present petition in respect of the
land belonging to Moti Lal and Heera Lal, who were the original land
holders. Lastly, the petitioner has filed the present petition after a lapse
of about 22 years from the handing over of the physical possessions of
the land in dispute to the respondent, as such, the present petition is li-
able to be dismissed on the ground of delay.
7. We have perused the records as well as the original records of the
case summoned from the office of the Competent Authority-respondent
No. 3. The perusal of the petition reveals that, admittedly, Heera Lal and
Moti Lal were the original land holders of the land in dispute. Further,
the genealogy of the family of the petitioner as contained in the writ pe-
tition is as below:-
Chottai Babadeen Bharodeen
Hari , Moti Mewalal
(Original
landholders)
Ramdaas Shivdhari Ramkishore Pichai Ramkripal
Ramlakhan Ramsajeewan Chandrakumar
Dashrath
(Petitioner)
4
WRIC No. - 62508 of 2014
8. Thus, admittedly, the petitioner is the grandson of Babadeen, the
real brother of the father of the original landholders, Chotai. Besides, the
proceedings under the Act, 1976 in the present case were in respect of
one-third share of Chhotai in the plots involved i.e the land in dispute
and not in respect of the share of Babadeen, the grandfather of the peti-
tioner.
9. The petitioner has failed to disclose as to how the lands in dispute
belonging to original landholders devolved upon the petitioner. Further,
there is no averment in the petition as to when the original landholders
passed away. It is also not stated as to who were the legal heirs of the
original landholders, Heera Lal and Moti Lal. More so, when the perusal
of the original records reveals that the service of notice under Section 9
was refused by the son of Moti Lal.
10. Further, the affidavit in support of the writ petition has been sworn
by one , Abhishek Kumar Tiwari, son of Rajeshwar Prasad Tiwari, who
apparently is not related to the petitioner in any manner nor any such
averment is made in the writ petition/ affidavit and it is Abhishek Kumar
Tiwari who has put his signatures on the writ petition. Thus, the con-
tention raised by the respondents regarding the locus of the petitioner to
challenge the proceedings initiated under Act, 1976 in respect of the land
belonging to Heera Lal and Moti Lal has force.
11. Furthermore, the fact regarding the notice under Section 8(3) and
the notice under Section 10 (5) not being served upon the original land-
holders, as well as the possession of the land in dispute not being handed
over to the respondents, in pursuance of the notice under Section 10(5),
has been sworn on the basis of personal knowledge of Abhishek Kumar
Tiwari, who alleges himself to be 32 years old and, as per his own show-
ing, would have been born in the year 1992. Under these circumstances,
the allegations contained in the writ petition cannot be relied upon.
12. Further the original records reveal that the notice under Section
10(5) was issued on 28.02.1994 and the land in dispute was recorded in
5
WRIC No. - 62508 of 2014
the name of Urban Land Ceiling in the revenue records on 10.01.1996
and the present writ petition has been filed in the year, 2014 after a lapse
of about twenty years from transfer of possession of the land in dispute.
Thus, the present writ petition is also liable to be dismissed on the
ground of delay in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the
case of State of Assam v. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma 2015 (5) SCC 321.
13. Thus, the present writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
14. Office is directed to return the original records received from the
office of the Competent Authority, Urban Ceiling, Prayagraj to the office
of learned Chief Standing Counsel forthwith.
(Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)
September 15, 2026
Nadeem
Digitally signed by :-
NADEEM AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…