Allahabad HC rejects heirs’ land plea after 22 years, says state took possession in 1992

AI generated image used for representative purpose

The Allahabad high court has dismissed a 2014 plea by five legal heirs seeking restoration of land in Bareilly, holding that they approached the court more than 22 years after the state took possession of the land.

The court said the family had not challenged the dispossession within a reasonable time and had therefore lost the right to question it. The judgment was delivered on September 14, 2026.Why did the family approach the high court?According to the court order, the dispute concerned land in village Salenagar, Bareilly, which was originally recorded in the name of Jograj, the predecessor of the petitioners. The petitioners said they inherited the land after his death in 1981 and continued to be in physical possession.They claimed that proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Urban (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 had been initiated against Jograj and that the land was declared surplus through an ex-parte order. They sought correction of the revenue records and a direction to the authorities not to interfere with their possession.The state said Jograj had been served notice and had filed an objection before an order was passed under Section 8(4) of the 1976 Act.

It said the prescribed process was subsequently completed, including a final statement, notification declaring the surplus land and proceedings for taking possession.According to the state, a possession document, or dakhalnama, was prepared on January 10, 1992, and the revenue records were subsequently changed in favour of the state.Why did the high court reject the plea?The bench comprising Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Siddharth Nandannoted that the original tenure holder had participated in the proceedings and that the records showed possession was taken in 1992.

The petitioners approached the high court only in 2014.“We have perused the records and the pleadings between the parties and we only find that apart from the revenue records, no other documents has been annexed and more so ever since an application under Section 20 of the Act, 1976 was moved as long back as in the year 1982, it can be safely concluded that the proceedings under the Act and the notification under Section 10(3) of the Act, 1976 was within the knowledge of the original tenure holder and legal heirs; but they had not taken any action against the dispossession under the Act, 1999; while the dakhalnama dated 10.01.1992 establishes their dispossession and had only approached this Court in the year 2014 i.e.

at a highly belated stage, i.e. more than 22 years from the date of taking over of the possession,” the court said.The bench also said the petitioners had not produced evidence showing that they were actually in possession when the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 came into force. The court said revenue entries alone could not establish possession of the surplus land at that point.“Nevertheless, there is no evidence on record to demonstrate that the petitioners were in possession, subsequent to the execution of the dakhalnama in the year 1992 or on the date of coming into force of the Repeal Act, 1999 i.e.

18.03.1999; and as such without assailing the dispossession under the Act, 1976, the question of de facto possession of the petitioners cannot be looked into, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,” it added.The court also distinguished earlier cases cited by the petitioners, noting that those cases involved different facts, including situations where possession had not been proved to have been taken or where the affected parties had approached the court soon after learning about the issue.The bench said the proceedings against Jograj had followed the statutory process and that the revenue entries made in 1992 had remained unchallenged. It found that the petitioners’ explanation for the delay did not justify approaching the court after 22 years.“The explanation given by the petitioners, as noted herein above are absolutely vague and does not justify filing of this writ petition before this Court after a delay of 22 years from the date of taking over possession and 15 years from the date of enforcement of the Repeal Act, 1999; and as such the same are liable to be rejected,” the high court observed.The court further held that the unexplained delay meant the petitioners could not now challenge alleged irregularities in the notice or possession document. It dismissed the writ petition and directed that there would be no order as to costs.