JUDGMENT
Amitava Lala, J.
1. In both the aforesaid writ petitions following prayers are made:
i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, restraining the respondents from allotting the land in dispute in favour of the respondent No. 3.
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in dispute.
iii. Issue such other and further order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
iv. Award costs.
2. It was contested by the parties, specially the State and a private respondent i.e. Little Flower School. According to the respondents-State, when the land was vested with them under The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, they took the possession of the land and on the basis of its decision at district level as per the policy of the State, the same was handed over to the Little Flower School. Therefore, the actual physical possession is with the School. Hence, even after coming into force of repealing Act i.e. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, the petitioners cannot get back the land in question. The Writ Court has a limited role to play in this respect i.e. to see who is in actual physical possession to comply with the provision of Repealing Act. To avoid the peculiar circumstances and to expedite the process, this Court on numerous occasions passed orders appointing the Special Officers to visit the premises in presence of the parties and file reports under sealed cover before the Court to come to a definite conclusion with regard to actual physical possession. As a result whereof we have appointed Sri Yashwant Varma, learned Advocate of the High Court as Special Officer, to visit the locale and submit report, who has submitted accordingly. Relevant part of the report is as follows:
I would, therefore, hold the Little Flower School is in actual physical possession of the plots in dispute except Plot No. 1045 where their possession is only over a small portion on which stands the hutment of the guard, the adjoining room and the portion of land in between the two constructions referred above. On Plot No. 1045 there are almost 21 residential houses where many families reside. The persons residing their stated that they had purchased their respective plot through Sri Vishram way back in 1986-89. I find no possession of the Little Flower School on Plot No. 1045 except for the small area where the residential quarter of their guard, the adjoining small room has been constructed and the area in between and in front where mustard had been sown by Tul Bahadur and was found growing.
3. We have concised the cases in similar manner on numerous occasions ‘and the contesting parties have accepted such view and various matters are disposed of in such manner. (See 2005 (99) RD 726 (Kailash and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors.) Civil. Misc. Writ Petition No. 36805 of 2003, Smt. Champa Devi v. State of U.P. and Ors. decided on 23.9.2005, Civil. Misc. Writ Petition No. 36803 of 2003, Smt. Shakuntala Devi v. State of U.P. and Ors. decided on 23.9.2005) This is one of such similarly circumstanced matters. The only difference is that in those cases actual physical possession was not with the State but here it is with the State through its authorised person.
4. We are bound by our own judgements in this regard. We cannot deviate from the settled position about determination of actual physical possession. The anxiety of the petitioners might be with regard to right, title and interest of the Little Flower School, the private-respondent, which cannot be determined by the Writ Court. However, it is open for the writ petitioners to institute any civil suit or initiate any proceeding in that regard, if so advised. This order is confined only to applicability of the Repealing Act regarding actual physical possession of the School and we have determined to that extent only. Thus, both the writ petitions are disposed of. Thus, the Special Officer is discharged, if not already by any earlier order. No order is passed as to costs. The original record which is lying with the registry, will be remitted back immediately to the State through the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State.