Holding

Pending proceedings under the 1976 Act are deemed abated under Section 4 of the 1999 Act because the State has not taken possession of the surplus land.

Summary

Mukkarram Ali Khan appealed against an order of the appellate authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Regulation Act, 1976, contending that the issues had already been decided by a prior order. The High Court refused to interfere, holding that the point was not raised before it. The appellant submitted an affidavit showing that the State of Uttar Pradesh had not taken possession of the surplus land in question. The Supreme Court noted that the 1999 Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act repealed the 1976 Act and that Section 4 of the 1999 Act provides that all pending proceedings under the repealed Act abate unless the State has taken possession of the land. Since possession had not been taken, the Court held the proceedings to be abated and allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

The applicability of Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1999 to pending proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling Regulation Act, 1976 when the State has not taken possession of the land.
Whether a point not raised before the High Court can be taken up on appeal.

Legislation cited

Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976

Subjects

Urban land ceilingAbatement of proceedingsRepeal legislationPossessionAppellate authoritySection 41999 Act1976 Act

Judgment

,.
A MUKKARRAM ALI KHAN
'r'
v.
ST ATE OF U.P. & ORS.

JULY 13, 2007

B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA,JJ.]

;._
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1999-Section 4-Abatement
of legal proceedings-Proceedings relating to land-Possession of surplus
land not taken by State pursuant to orders by the Authorities under the 1976
c Act-Act of 1976 replaced under the 1999 Act-State of UP. adopting the
provisions of 1999 Act and the Act in force in the State-,-Effect of-Held:
Proceeding under the 1976 Act is treated to have been abated under section
4 of the 1999 Act-Urban Land Ceiling Regulation Act. 1976.

D Appellate Authority passed an order under the Urban Land Ceiling
1' Regulation Act, 1976. Aggrieved appellant challenged the same on the ground ~

that the issues were concluded by an earlier order by the competent authority. ~

Appellant took the said point in the objection and mentioned it in the writ
petition but it did not point out that the appellate authority did not consider
the same. High Court holding that it cannot be presumed that the said point
E was urged and the appellate authority had overlooked the same, upheld the
order of the Appellate Authority. Hence, the present appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. The Urban Land Ceiling Regulation Act, 1976 has been
F replaced under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1999. Admittedly ;.....

the State of Uttar Pradesh has since adopted the provisions of the Repeal Act
"
by a resolution as required under Article 252(2) of the Constitution of India,
1950. Repealing Act has since come into force in the State of Uttar Pradesh
with effect from 18.3.1999. IPara 411341-G; 342-AI
G 1.2 In view of the affidavit filed by the appellant to which no objection
has been filed, undisputed position is that the State has not taken the
possession over the surplus land. Therefore, the proceedings have to be treated I
,,, ~
to have abated under Section 4 of the Repeal Act. IPara 61 (342-C, DJ

H 340
I MUKKARRAMALIKHAN v. STATEOFU.P. [PASAYAT,J.) 341

...,,. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 632 of200 I. A
From the Judgment & Order dated 30.07 .1997 of the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6240 of 1987.

M.C. Dhingra for the Appellant.
B
Raj Kr. Gupta, Rajeev Dubey and Kamlendra Mishra for the Respondents.

).,
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. I. Challenge in this appeal is the order passed
by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 6240 of 1987. The appellant had challenged the order dated
c
12.12.1986 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) passed by the appellate authority
under the Urban Land Ceiling Regulation Act, 1976 (in short the 'Act') in
U.L.C.(Misc.) Appeal No. 241 of 1985 on the ground that the issues are
.,.I
concluded by an earlier order passed in appeal against the draft statement
D
... under Section 6 by the competent authority. Though the said point was taken
in the objection and mentioned in the writ petition but it was not pointed out
that the appellate authority did not consider the same. In the absence of any
such statement the High Court held that it cannot be presumed that the point
was urged and the appellate authority had overlooked the same. Therefore,
the High Court refused to interfere in the matter.
E
2. Though many points were urged in support of the appeal, the primary
point urged was that possession has not been taken pursuant to orders
passed by the authorities under the Act. An affidavit has been filed indicating
that the possession of the land has not been taken and the land in question
--.. '>
continues to be in possession of the appellant and his sons. F
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-State and its functionaries
contended that the point regarding earlier adjudication was not urged before
the High Court and therefore the High Court has rightly decided that in the
absence of any specific plea a new plea cannot be taken before it.
G
4. It is to be noted that the Act has been replilced under the Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1999 (in short the 'Repeal Act'). Admittedly the
'::"" State of Uttar Pradesh has since adopted the provisions of the Repeal Act
" by a resolution as required under Article 252(2) of the Constitution of India,
1950 (in short the 'Constitution'). Repealing Act has since come into force
H
342 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 8 S.C.R.

A in the State of Uttar Pradesh with effect from 18.3 .1999.

5. Section 4 of the Repeal Act reads as follows:

"4. Abatement of legal proceedings- All proceedings relating to
any order made or purported to be made under the principal Act
B pending immediately b~fore the commencement of this Act, before
any court. tribunal or other authority shall abate;

Provided that this section shall not apply to the proceedings
relating to Sections 1! , 12, 13 and 14 of the principal Act insofar as
such proceedings are relatable to the land, possession of which has
c been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorised
by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority."

6. In view of the affidavit filed by the appellant to which no objection '
r
has been filed, undisputed position is that the State has not taken the
possession over the surplus land. Therefore, the proceedings have to be
D treated to have abated under Section 4 of the Repeal Act.

NJ.
7. That being so, the appeal deserves to be allowed which we direct.

Appeal allowed.
-