State of U.P. & Anr. vs Ehsan & Anr.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

13 October 2023

Case No.

Civil Appeal No.5721 of 2023

Result

Allowed

Bench

Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Manoj Misra

Citation

[2023] 13 S.C.R. 905 : 2023 INSC 906

Issue for consideration

Whether in exercise of writ jurisdiction the High Court should have refrained from adjudicating the contentious issue with regard to taking of actual possession of the surplus land from the landholder, when the same was not decided in the previous round of litigation even though it had arisen for consideration. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 – The High Court disposed of the writ petition by judgment and order dated 08.10.2018 declaring that the land in dispute shall continue to be in possession of the first respondent-original petitioner and would not be treated as surplus land as he is entitled to the benefits of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 – Propriety: Held: Having regard to the following: (a) that there was a serious dispute with regard to taking of possession of the surplus land; (b) that there was a delay of about seven years in filing the first writ petition from the date when possession was allegedly taken by the State, after publication of the vesting notification; (c) that no documentary evidence such as a Khasra or Khatauni of the period between alleged date of taking possession and filing of the first writ petition was filed by the original petitioner; (d) that in the earlier two rounds of litigation, the High Court refrained from deciding the issue of possession of the surplus land even though that issue had arisen directly between the parties; and (e) that infraction of the prescribed statutory procedure for taking possession cannot be the sole basis to discard State’s claim of possession, when it is stated to have been taken long before the date the issue is raised, this Court is of the considered view that the High Court should have refrained from deciding the issue with regard to taking of actual possession of the surplus land prior to the cut off date specified in the Repeal Act, 1999 – Instead, the writ petitioner should have been relegated to a suit – The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside – The first respondent’s writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to his right to institute a suit. [Paras 35, 36]

Headnote

LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129: [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.

State of U.P. vs. Hari Ram (2013) 4 SCC 280: [2013] 2 SCR 301; Syed Maqbool Ali vs. State of U.P. (2011) 15 SCC 383: [2011] 4 SCR 238; State of Assam vs. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma & Others (2015) 5 SCC 321: [2014] 14 SCR 1451; Banda Development Authority vs. Moti Lal Agarwal (2011) 5 SCC 394: [2011] 7 SCR 435 – relied on.

Raghbir Singh Sehrawat vs. State of Haryana and Others (2012) 1 SCC 792: [2011] 14 SCR 1113; Municipal Council, Ahmednagar and Another vs. Shah Hyder Beig and Others (2000) 2 SCC 48: [1999] 5 Suppl. SCR 197; State of M.P. vs. Ghisilal (2021) SCC Online SC 1098; Competent Authority, Calcutta, Under The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and Another vs. David Mantosh and Others (2020) 12 SCC 542: [2019] 4 SCR 331; Saurav Jain and Another vs. A.B.P. Design and Another (2021) SCC Online SC 552 – referred to.

OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED

ORDER AND APPEARANCES

JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT MANOJ MISRA, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court1 dated 08.10.2018, passed in Writ C No. 21009 of 2012, by which the writ petition of the first respondent2 was disposed of by declaring that the land in dispute shall continue to be in possession of the original petitioner and would not be treated as surplus land as he is entitled to the benefits of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 19993. In addition to the above, a direction was issued to the Competent Authority (Urban Ceiling) Sahara

View Subscription Plans →