Scribd
Upload
55 views1 page

State of U.P & Ors v. Gayur & Ors.

The State of U.P. appealed a High Court decision allowing a writ petition regarding surplus land declared under the Urban Land Ceiling Act of 1976. [1] The High Court ruled the State did not take actual physical possession as required by law, and the respondents continued possession. [2] However, the State argues it did take possession on November 31, 1987, transferring control to the Development Authority, unlike the case the High Court relied on. [3] The State contends the High Court incorrectly applied the facts in its legal precedent.

Uploaded by

Amber Siddiqui
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
55 views1 page

State of U.P & Ors v. Gayur & Ors.

The State of U.P. appealed a High Court decision allowing a writ petition regarding surplus land declared under the Urban Land Ceiling Act of 1976. [1] The High Court ruled the State did not take actual physical possession as required by law, and the respondents continued possession. [2] However, the State argues it did take possession on November 31, 1987, transferring control to the Development Authority, unlike the case the High Court relied on. [3] The State contends the High Court incorrectly applied the facts in its legal precedent.

Uploaded by

Amber Siddiqui
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

35. State of U.P. & Ors v. Gayur & Ors.

Issue Whether the High Court erred in allowing the writ petition on the ground that the actual
physical possession was not taken by the State Government and relied upon the judgment which
is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case?

Facts A notice u/s 8(3) of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976 was issued to the
land tenure holder [06.11.1978]. The Ld. Competent Authority declared 6196.80 Sq Meter area
as surplus land area and further directed to prepare final return under 9(1) of the Urban Land
Ceiling Act, 1976. [27.11.1980, pg. 15] The Competent Authority Urban Land Ceiling,
Saharanpur published an advertisement under 10(1) [24.02.1983, pg. 17]. The competent
authority issued a notice u/s 10(3) of the Act and the same was published [04.12.1996, pg. 19].
The competent authority then issued an order u/s 10(5) of the Act [29.10.1987, pg. 21]. Then on
behalf of the Government, the state officers had taken possession of the surplus land [31.11.1987,
pg. 23]. Upon an ordinance which repealed the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulations) Act, 1976 being adopted by the State Government and subsequently becoming an
Act, i.e Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulations) Repeal Act, 1999 [22.03.1999]. Section 3 of the
Repeal Act saves the vesting of any vacant land u/s 10(3) of the Act, possession of which has
been taken over by the State Government [22.03.1999, pg. 24]. The Competent Authority
transferred the possession of the surplus land to Saharanpur Development Authority.

The Respondents herein filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition before the Honble High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad praying for a direction to be issued to the petitioners not to interfere in
his peaceful possession over the land declared as surplus land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulations) Act, 1976 as they continue in possession.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Division Bench [23.05.2013, pg.1]

Writ petition allowed. The main ground was that actual physical possession over the land was
never taken, in accordance with law and the respondent continued in actual possession. The court
directed the Petitioners not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner and also
restore entry in his name on moving proper application in accordance with the law within
shortest possible time.

The High Court failed to appreciate in the case which it relied upon that in the case of State of
U.P v. Hari Ram, possession was not taken over by the State Government, but in the present case,
the possession was taken over by the State Authorities on 26.05.2003.

You might also like