Writ Court Can Decide On Aspect Of De Facto Possession Of Land If Disputed Facts Can Be Discerned: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court allowed a Writ Petition seeking to restrain the State authorities from dispossessing or interfering with the peaceful possession of land.
The Allahabad High Court held that the Writ Court can decide on the aspect of de facto possession of land if disputed facts can be discerned.
The Court held thus in a Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus restraining the State authorities from dispossessing or interfering with the peaceful possession of the Petitioners from their surplus declared land.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit observed, “… we are of the view that the writ Court can decide on the aspect of de facto possession of land if the disputed facts can be discerned and the correct position, ascertained by the writ Court.”
The Bench said that the case is clearly in favour of the Petitioners as the State has not been able to indicate in any manner as to how de facto possession was taken by the State.
Advocate Sanjay Goswami appeared for the Petitioners while Standing Counsel Shubhra Singh and Mohan Srivastava appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The father, father-in-law, and grandfather of the Petitioners was the owner in possession of various agricultural lands and his name was also recorded in Khasra of 1422 Fasli year (corresponding to the year 2012). He had been cultivating the land since then. The State initiated ceiling proceedings against him in a case under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 based on his statement regarding vacant land. Thereafter, the Competent Authority passed an ex-parte Order declaring 67,138.12 square meter of land as surplus. In 1993, a notification under Section 10(1) of the Ceiling Act was published, followed by a declaration in the Official Gazette. Subsequently, a notice was issued directing him to voluntarily handover/surrender the possession of surplus land to the Collector/District Magistrate, Allahabad within 30 days of receipt of the notice. However, he neither voluntarily surrendered the possession of land before the authority, nor did the District Magistrate/Collector or any other authority took forceful possessions of the same.
He continued in the actual physical possession of land until his death in May 2005. After his demise, his legal heirs inherited the property, including the surplus land, and remained in actual possession since then. Since neither actual physical possession of the land was taken by the State Government nor any compensation was awarded to them for the surplus declared land, all the proceedings under the Act, stood abated after enforcement of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. In 2015, the Respondent authorities visited the land and threatened the Petitioners to vacate the surplus land within 30 days. They warned of forced dispossession if the land was not surrendered. Being aggrieved by the ex-parte Order and the threat received from the Respondents, the Petitioners approached the High Court, seeking relief.
Reasoning
The High Court in the above context of the case, noted, “In view of the documentary evidence produced by both the parties, there appears some confusion with regard to whether possession was actually taken by the State. The present writ petition has been filed in the year 2016, that is, 20 years after the possession was supposedly taken by the State. The reason provided in the writ petition with regard to the laches on the part of petitioners in filing this writ petition so late in the day is that the State was after 20 years harassing the petitioners and trying to take possession of their land.”
The Court added that a writ Court cannot go into a disputed question of fact, then the same may lead to a terrible miscarriage of justice.
The Court remarked that though the State has not been able to indicate exactly as to when possession was taken by the State, it is clear from the facts that by a Government Order, the State, after having supposedly taken possession of the land, had transferred the same to Prayagraj Development Authority.
“However, in the counter-affidavit the State has not been able to indicate any notice under Section 10 (6) of the Ceiling Act having been issued to the land holder for forceful dispossession nor any amount having been paid by the State Government as compensation with respect to such land. These above facts tilt the scale in favour of the petitioners and one has to conclude that even though there have been laches on the part of the petitioners, the State has ultimately not ever been able to show de facto possession”, it further observed.
The Court also reiterated that the possession envisaged under Section 3 of the Repeal Act, is de facto possession and not de jure possession and mere vesting of land declared surplus under the Act without resuming de facto possession is of no consequence and the land holder is entitled to the benefit of the Repeal Act.
“… we are of the view that the factual matrix of the present case is clearly in favour of the petitioners as the State has not been able to indicate in any manner as to how de facto possession was taken by the State. From the facts, it is also indicated that in the Khasra, the name of the petitioners was present from 2012 till 2016”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition and directed the authorities to carry out changes in the revenue records in favour of the Petitioners within eight weeks.
Cause Title- Ramji and Others v. State of U.P. and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:45295-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocate Sanjay Goswami
Respondents: Standing Counsel Shubhra Singh, Mohan Srivastava, and Advocate Neelambhar Tripathi.
