STATE OF U.P. & ANR versus EHSAN & ANR

Citation: [2023] 13 S.C.R. 905 · Decided: 13-10-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 13 S.C.R. 905 : 2023 INSC 906
905
CASE DETAILS
STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
v.
EHSAN & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No.5721 of 2023)
OCTOBER 13, 2023
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA AND 
MANOJ MISRA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether in exercise of writ jurisdiction 
the High Court should have refrained from adjudicating the contentious 
issue with regard to taking of actual possession of the surplus land from 
the landholder, when the same was not decided in the previous round of 
litigation even though it had arisen for consideration.
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 – The 
High Court disposed of the writ petition by judgment and order dated 
08.10.2018 declaring that the land in dispute shall continue to be in 
possession of the ﬁ rst respondent-original petitioner and would not 
be treated as surplus land as he is entitled to the beneﬁ ts of the Urban 
Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 – Propriety:
Held: Having regard to the following: (a) that there was a serious 
dispute with regard to taking of possession of the surplus land; (b) that there 
was a delay of about seven years in ﬁ ling the ﬁ rst writ petition from the date 
when possession was allegedly taken by the State, after publication of the 
vesting notiﬁ cation; (c) that no documentary evidence such as a Khasra or 
Khatauni of the period between alleged date of taking possession and ﬁ ling 
of the ﬁ rst writ petition was ﬁ led by the original petitioner; (d) that in the 
earlier two rounds of litigation, the High Court refrained from deciding the 
issue of possession of the surplus land even though that issue had arisen 
directly between the parties; and (e) that infraction of the prescribed statutory 
procedure for taking possession cannot be the sole basis to discard State’s 
claim of possession, when it is stated to have been taken long before the 
906 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 13 S.C.R.
date the issue is raised, this Court is of the considered view that the High 
Court should have refrained from deciding the issue with regard to taking of 
actual possession of the surplus land prior to the cut oﬀ  date speciﬁ ed in the 
Repeal Act, 1999 – Instead, the writ petitioner should have been relegated 
to a suit – The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside – The 
ﬁ rst respondent’s writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to his right 
to institute a suit. [Paras 35, 36]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129: 
[2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
State of U.P. vs. Hari Ram (2013) 4 SCC 280: [2013] 2 SCR 301; Syed 
Maqbool Ali vs. State of U.P. (2011) 15 SCC 383: [2011] 4 SCR 238; State 
of Assam vs. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma & Others (2015) 5 SCC 321: [2014] 14 
SCR 1451; Banda Development Authority vs. Moti Lal Agarwal (2011) 5 
SCC 394: [2011] 7 SCR 435 – relied on.
Raghbir Singh Sehrawat vs. State of Haryana and Others (2012) 1 SCC 
792: [2011] 14 SCR 1113; Municipal Council, Ahmednagar and Another vs. 
Shah Hyder Beig and Others (2000) 2 SCC 48: [1999] 5 Suppl. SCR 197; 
State of M.P. vs. Ghisilal (2021) SCC Online SC 1098; Competent Authority, 
Calcutta, Under The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and 
Another vs. David Mantosh and Others (2020) 12 SCC 542: [2019] 4 SCR 
331; Saurav Jain and Another vs. A.B.P. Design and Another (2021) SCC 
Online SC 552 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.5721 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.10.2018 of the High Court of 
Judicature at Allahabad in WC No.21009 of 2012.
Appearances:
Rana Mukhejee, Sr. Adv., Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Ashiwan Mishra, Ms. 
Chandni Arora, Ms. Oindrilla, Kamlendra Mishra, Advs. for the Appellants.
Ankur Yadav, Adv. for the Respondents.
907
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
MANOJ MISRA, J.
1.  This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High 
Court1 dated 08.10.2018, passed in Writ C No. 21009 of 2012, by which the 
writ petition of the ﬁ rst respondent2 was disposed of by declaring that the 
land in dispute shall continue to be in possession of the original petitioner 
and would not be treated as surplus land as he is entitled to the beneﬁ ts of the 
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 19993. In addition to the 
above, a direction was issued to the Competent Authority (Urban Ceiling) 
Saharanpur4 to ensure that the name of the original petitione
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.