Mukkarram Ali Khan v. State of U.P.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat
Lokeswar Singh Panta
Judgment Date: 2007-07-13
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Mukkarram Ali Khan

Respondents

State of U.P. and Others

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• M.C. Dhingra

Counsels for Respondents

• Raj Kr. Gupta
• Rajeev Dubey
• Kamlendra Mishra

Case Synopsis & Summary

Mukkarram Ali Khan v. State of U.P. deals with proceedings under ULCRA 1976 for surplus land and their abatement upon repeal by the 1999 Act. The Supreme Court examined whether a writ-petition challenge to an order of the Appellate Authority under ULCRA 1976 could be sustained after the Uttar Pradesh government adopted the repealing Act by a constitutional resolution under Article 252(2). The High Court had refused to entertain a plea that the issues had already been adjudicated and that a prior order should have disposed of the matter. The appellant contended that possession of the surplus land had not been taken under the authority’s orders, with the land still in his and his sons’ possession, while the State argued that the earlier plea was not properly raised before the High Court. The Court clarified that ULCRA 1976 was repealed by ULCRA 1999 and that under Section 4 of the Repeal Act, all pending proceedings abate, except where possession has been taken over. The affidavit on record showed no possession by the State. Consequently, the proceedings abate, and the appeal is allowed, setting aside the earlier order. The decision emphasizes that the 1999 Act replaces the 1976 Act and abates pending proceedings accordingly.

Provisions of Law Cited

Urban Land Ceiling Regulation Act, 1976Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1999Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1999Article 252(2) of the Constitution of India, 1950Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Urban Land Ceiling Regulation Act, 1976Section 6 of the Urban Land Ceiling Regulation Act, 1976

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant argued that possession of the surplus land had not been taken under the orders of the authorities and that the earlier issues were not truly concluded, warranting consideration of the challenge to the appellate order. With ULCRA 1999 repealing ULCRA 1976, the appellant asserted that pending proceedings should abate under the Repeal Act’s Section 4, given that possession had not been taken. The argument stressed that the writ petition already contained the relevant pleas but were not properly adjudicated by the High Court or the appellate authority, and that abatement should follow from non-possession and repealing enactment.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that the High Court rightly refused belated pleas not raised earlier and that possession issues were not properly proved to affect the appeal. They urged that as the 1999 Repeal Act repealed ULCRA 1976, abatement should follow only if possession had not been taken, with the State not having asserted possession in the proceedings at issue. They argued that the prior adjudication status remained unresolved before the appellate authority and that the writ petition failed to raise new pleas before the High Court.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A # MUKKARRAM ALI KHAN 'r' _v._ ## ST A TE OF U.P. & ORS. ## JULY 13, 2007 ## B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA,JJ.] ;._ _Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1999-Section 4-Abatement of legal proceedings-Proceedings relating to land-Possession of surplus_ c _[land not taken by State pursuant ][to ][orders by the Authorities under the 1976 ] Act-Act of 1976 replaced under the 1999 Act-State of UP. adopting the provisions of 1999 Act and the Act in force in the State-,-Effect of-Held: Proceeding under the 1976 Act is treated to have been abated under section 4 of the 1999 Act-Urban Land Ceiling Regulation Act. 1976._ _1'_ D Appellate Authority passed an order under the Urban Land Ceiling Regulation Act, 1976. Aggrieved appellant challenged the same on the ground that the issues were concluded by an earlier order by the competent authority. Appellant took the said point in the objection and mentioned it in the writ petition but it did not point out that the appellate authority did not consider the same. High Court holding that it cannot be presumed that the said point E was urged and the appellate authority had overlooked the same, upheld the order of the Appellate Authority. Hence, the present appeal. ~ ## Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The Urban Land Ceiling Regulation Act, 1976 has been F replaced under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1999. Admittedly the State of Uttar Pradesh has since adopted the provisions of the Repeal Act by a resolution as required under Article 252(2) of the Constitution of India, 1950. Repealing Act has since come into force in the State of Uttar Pradesh with effect from 18.3.1999. IPara 411341-G; 342-AI G 1.2 In view of the affidavit filed by the appellant to which no objection has been filed, undisputed position is that the State has not taken the possession over the surplus land. Therefore, the proceedings have to be treated to have abated under Section 4 of the Repeal Act. IPara 61 (342-C, DJ " ,,, ;..... H 340 MUKKARRAMALIKHAN _v._ STATEOFU.P. [PASAYAT,J.) 341 I CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 632 of200 I. ...,,. From the Judgment & Order dated 30.07 .1997 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6240 of 1987. M.C. Dhingra for the Appellant. B Raj Kr. Gupta, Rajeev Dubey and Kamlendra Mishra for the Respondents. ,. . I --.. )., '> The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. I. Challenge in this appeal is the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ c Petition No. 6240 of 1987. The appellant had challenged the order dated 12.12.1986 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) passed by the appellate authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Regulation Act, 1976 (in short the 'Act') in U.L.C.(Misc.) Appeal No. 241 of 1985 on the ground that the issues are concluded by an earlier order passed in appeal against the draft statement under Section 6 by the competent authority. Though the said point was taken D in the objection and mentioned in the writ petition but it was not pointed out that the appellate authority did not consider the same. In the absence of any such statement the High Court held that it cannot be presumed that the point was urged and the appellate authority had overlooked the same. Therefore, the High Court refused to interfere in the matter. E 2. Though many points were urged in support of the appeal, the primary point urged was that possession has not been taken pursuant to orders passed by the authorities under the Act. An affidavit has been filed indicating that the possession of the land has not been taken and the land in question continues to be in possession of the appellant and his sons. F 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-State and its functionaries contended that the point regarding earlier adjudication was not urged before the High Court and therefore the High Court has rightly decided that in the absence of any specific plea a new plea cannot be taken before it. G > '::"" " 4. It is to be noted that the Act has been replilced under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1999 (in short the 'Repeal Act'). Admittedly the State of Uttar Pradesh has since adopted the provisions of the Repeal Act by a resolution as required under Article 252(2) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution'). Repealing Act has since come into force H (2007] 8 S.C.R. 342 SUPREME COURT REPORTS A in the State of Uttar Pradesh with effect from 18.3 .1999. _5._ Section 4 of the Repeal Act reads as follows: "4. _Abatement of legal proceedings-_ All proceedings relating to any order made or purported to be made under the principal Act B pending immediately b~fore the commencement of this Act, before any court. tribunal or other authority shall abate; Provided that this section shall not apply to the proceedings relating to Sections 1 ! , 12, 13 and 14 of the principal Act insofar as such proceedings are relatable to the land, possession of which has c been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority." 6. In view of the affidavit filed by the appellant to which no objection has been filed, undisputed position is that the State has not taken the possession over the surplus land. Therefore, the proceedings have to be D treated to have abated under Section 4 of the Repeal Act. ' _r_ 7. That being so, the appeal deserves to be allowed which we direct. NJ. Appeal allowed.