Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 63383 of 2009 Petitioner :- Jitendra Jeet Singh & Ors. Respondent :- Union Of India & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Dr. G.S.D. Mishra Respondent Counsel :- A.S.G.I.,Tej Prakash Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J.
Hon’ble Virendra Singh,J.
Heard Sri G.S.D. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Ashok Nigam,
Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Sri R.P. Pandey.
By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated
30.10.2009 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) by which letter, information has been
given to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act that land around
Bungalow measuring 5627.08 Sq. Meters has been under the management of the
Army which was taken over on 24.04.1986 under the Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act, 1976. The petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus directing the
respondents not to create any hindrance on peaceful possession over Bungalow No.
23, Sadar Bazar, Bareilly Cantt.
The petitioner’s case is that the bungalow was purchased through a registered deed
dated 05.12.1961 and was recorded in the name of Smt. Ranjeet Kaur and Sri
Narendra Singh. Smt. Ranjeet Kaur is said to have died on 22.08.1997 leaving
behind his sons and daughters. A sale deed dated 07.12.2001 is claimed by the
petitioner from Narendra Singh.
A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in which it has been stated
that an area of 5627.08 sq. meters was declared surplus under the Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and possession of which was taken on
24.04.1986. It has further been stated that a notice was also issued on 03.04.1986
(Annexure CA-3) to Smt. Ranjeet Kaur for taking over possession of the surplus
land.
Annexure CA-1 has been filed recording the taking over of possession which is
claimed to have been signed by Smt. Ranjeet Kaur. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioners are continuously in possession of the entire
bungalow including the land now sought to be claimed by the respondents and at
no point of time, actual physical possession was taken by the respondents.
He has placed reliance on judgements of this court reported in 2006 2 JCLR 244
(Smt. AD vs. State of U.P.) and 2005 59 ALR 413 (CN vs. State of U.P.). Learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,
1976 having been repealed, the possession cannot be taken now by the respondents.
We have considered the submissions and perused the record.
After repeal of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘1976 Act’), it is ture that no possession can be taken and all
proceedings were to be abated after the Repeal Act 1999. The issue to be
considered in the writ petition is as to whether the possession was taken by the
respondents in the year 1986 as claimed. The documents which have been filed
along with the counter affidavit contains the taking over of possession which also
contains the signature of Smt. Ranjeet Kaur. The submission which has been made
by the petitioner is that the said letter does not contain the signature of Smt. Ranjeet
Kaur. Learned counsel submitted that there is a difference of signature in Annexure
CA-1 and Annexure CA-2 . He further contended that actual physical possession
was never taken and it was the petitioner who was throughout in actual physical
possession.
Insofar as the submission of the petitioner that the said document does not contain
the signature of Smt. Rajendra Kaur is concerned, suffice it to say that the
documents which have been filed have come up from proper custody and there is
no ground to disbelieve the pleadings of the respondent which have been brought
on record by the counter affidavit, especially, when the affidavit has been sworn by
the Executive Commandant, Bareilly Cantt. Notice dated 03.04.1986 addressed to
Smt. Ranjeet Kaur has also been brought on record. The documents taking over
possession including the map has been brought on record, there is no reason to
disbelieve the same.
The second submission which has been much emphasized by the petitioner is that
actual physical possession has not been taken by the respondent. Suffice it to say
that with regard to immovable property, the taking over symbolical possession
which has been reflected filed along with the counter affidavit, is enough for taking
over possession. The judgement which has been relied by the petitioner was a case
where the claim of reverting the possession by the owner whose land was declared
surplus was repelled. It was held that possession was taken by the State and was
handed over to a school which was in physical possession. The said judgement
does not help the petitioner in any manner. We see no good ground to entertain this
writ petition in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The relief prayed cannot be granted.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Interim order is discharged.
Order Date :- 6.1.2010
Jaideep/-
