Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Madan Mohan And Others v. Competent Authority Urban Land Ceiling Varanasi And Others - WRIT - C No. 25083 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 9117 (8 May 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).



Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.25083  of  2006

Madan Mohan & Ors


Competent Authority Urban Land Ceiling Varanasi& Anr.

Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.

This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated  26/12/2005 (annex-3) by which the petitioners application for release of the land declared surplus under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation Act), 1976 (hereinafter called the Act) has been rejected.

The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the  father of the petitioners had filed a return under Section 6 (1) of the Act and the land measuring  932 Sq Metres was declared surplus vide judgment and order  of the Prescribed Authority dated 17/6/1981. Petitioners father did not file any appeal against the said order. The petitioners filed an application before the Secretary, U.P. Awas Vikas (not a party before us) to release the said land on various grounds. The said application was transferred to the Competent Authority under the Act by  which the application has been rejected vide order dated 26/12/2005 observing that there was certain typographical and clerical mistakes in the name of village and in the areas. The same had been corrected, but the application has been rejected for releasing the land. Hence this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners Sri H.K. Sharma has raised large number of issues that the present petitioners had filed the return under Section 6 (1) of the Act. They never received any notice under Sections 10(3), 10 (5) and 10 (6), therefore, they could not be dispossessed without following the procedure prescribed by law. Declaration of the surplus land is illegal and as the Act stood repealed in the year 1999, they are entitled for the relief sought.

On the other hand the learned Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the writ petition submitting that the petitioners father was assessed and not the present petitioners. The case was decided in the year 1981. No appeal etc was filed by their father. It is evident from the order impugned that their father died seven years ago. It may be in the year 1999-2000, therefore, the present petitioners cannot be in a position to say what has been submitted in the writ petition, hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.

We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

Admittedly, the petitioners have not explained anywhere as to whether the petitioners or their Father Late Arjun was the original assessee and if their Father had died seven years ago, how they could move an application in their names before the Secretary U.P. Awas Vikas. More so, possession of the land is always taken by the State and then handed over to the U.P. Awas Vikas. The averments made in the petition that the possession was handed over to the U.P. Awas Vikas in the year 2002 is meaningless as possession should have been taken by the State earlier. The averments made in the petition do not disclose the real facts.

Learned counsel for the petitioners could not explain that if the present petitioners are in possession of the land, how the possession was handed over to the U.P. Awas Vikas in the year 2002, and what was the occasion  for them to get the land released. The petition has been filed without disclosing the full facts. It appears that their father Late Arjun was assessed who had died seven years ago and he could have full knowledge of all the material facts. The petition has been drafted as if the present petitioners had been assessed. The averments mentioned in the petition do not inspire any confidence.

The writ petition  is accordingly dismissed.  




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.