Urban Land Ceiling Act | Sale Of Surplus Land Rendered Void Under Old Act Can't Be Revived By Repeal Act: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that sale of surplus land which has been declared void under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 cannot be revived by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.Section 10(4) of the Act deems any transfer of excess vacant land made during this period to be null and void. Noting that the Repeal Act is silent on such transfers, the...
The Allahabad High Court has held that sale of surplus land which has been declared void under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 cannot be revived by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.
Section 10(4) of the Act deems any transfer of excess vacant land made during this period to be null and void. Noting that the Repeal Act is silent on such transfers, the Court applied Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, under which a repeal does not affect the previous operation of the repealed enactment.
The bench of Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Sudhanshu Chauhan held,
“Hence, it can be fairly held that if the transfer of surplus land by the landholder is deemed null and void by operation of law as it existed on the date of transfer under the provisions of the Act, 1976, then the Repeal Act, 1999 will not infuse life in the said lease, nor will it affect the operation of the enactment in so far as it declares the sale to be null and void. Thus, the sale deed dated 10.11.1987 executed in favour of the petitioner is hit by the provisions of Section 10(4) of the Act, 1976.”
It held that sale of excess vacant land executed after publication of the notification under Section 10(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and before the declaration under Section 10(3) is null and void, and the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 does not revive such a sale. It held that a purchaser under such a sale has no locus to question irregularities in the ceiling proceedings.
Petitioner, a society running a school in Bareilly, purchased the share of Mohd. Kamar in land in Village Jagatpur Lala Begum by a registered sale deed dated 10.11.1987, after giving notices under Section 26 of the Act. In ceiling proceedings against Mohd. Kamar, 4,021.26 sq m of the land had been declared vacant surplus in 1982, and notifications under Section 10(1) and Section 10(3) were issued on 15.12.1982 and 28.12.1989 respectively.
Claiming that it learnt of the ceiling proceedings only when an FIR was lodged in February, 2024, petitioner sought quashing of the proceedings as abated under the Repeal Act, since it was in possession when the Repeal Act came into force. It also alleged procedural defects in the proceedings.
The State argued that the sale was void under Section 10(4) and the petition was barred by delay as the petitioner knew of the proceedings when it purchased the land.
The Court held that Section 26 applies to land within the ceiling limit, which is 1,500 sq m in Bareilly, and upheld the sale to the extent of the 1,500 sq m held to be within the ceiling limit.
However, since the sale was executed between the Section 10(1) and Section 10(3) notifications on the petitioner's own showing, it was held void in respect of the 4,021.26 sq m declared surplus.
The Court relied on the coordinate Bench decision in Ritesh Tiwari and another v. State of UP, upheld by the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court's decision in State of UP and others v. Adarsh Seva Sahkari Samiti Limited, wherein a transferee of surplus land vested in the State was held to have no locus to challenge the State's failure to take possession as per the statute.
“Once the sale deed dated 10.11.1987 executed in favour of the petitioner in respect of 4021.26 sq m. of land i.e. land in dispute is null and void, hence, the petitioner has no right, title or interest over the same. Thus, there is no occasion for us to delve into the questions of alleged irregularities in proceedings under the Act, 1976 at the instance of the petitioner, who has no locus to question the same.”
Rejecting the petitioner's plea of ignorance as frivolous, the Court observed that the sale deed itself referred to the Section 26 notices, showing that the petitioner knew of the ceiling proceedings when it bought the land.
“Under the circumstances, considering the conduct of the petitioner and the attempt made by it to mislead this Court, we are of the view that this is not a fit case to exercise our extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the grounds of equity.”
Holding that the petition, filed in April, 2024, was also barred by delay and laches, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
Case Title: Wood Row School Society vs. State Of UP And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 737
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 737