MUKKARRAM ALI KHAN versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2007] 8 S.C.R. 340 · Decided: 13-07-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

,. 
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. 
D 
Appellate Authority passed an order under the Urban Land Ceiling 
1' 
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 
E 
the same. High Court holding that it cannot be presumed that the said point 
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 
I 
to have abated under Section 4 of the Repeal Act. IPara 61 (342-C, DJ 
,,, 
~ 
H 
340 
I 
MUKKARRAMALIKHAN v. STATEOFU.P. [PASAYAT,J.) 
341 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 632 of200 I. 
A 
...,,. 
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. 
)., 
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 
. 
I 
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 sin

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.