Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:142997-DB Court No. - 3 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 8 of 2025 Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Sinha Opposite Party :- District Magistrate Bareilly District Bareilly and another Counsel for Applicant :- Poonam Yadav, Raj Karan Yadav, Yadvendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf,J. Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present application has been filed by the petitioner seeking review of our order dated 17.03.2025 whereby the writ petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file proper application before the competent authority in the light of observations made in the order impugned as well as in our order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 09.02.2016 passed by the competent authority under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was challenged on the ground that he had unnecessarily deferred the matter of abatement of ceiling proceedings till adjudication of rights of the parties by the competent court, though, there was no impediment in ordering for abatement, which plea was based upon the Repeal Act of 1999. It is further contended that so long as the proceedings are not abated by the competent authority, no Court whether civil or revenue, would be competent to decide any dispute and, therefore, abatement should have been ordered and, consequently, order dismissing the writ petition, be reviewed and the petition be allowed setting aside the order impugned. 4. Learned Standing Counsel submits that question of abatement is in between the tenure-holder and the State, however it has other consequences, that is to say that, in case proceedings are abated, a question would arise as to the maintenance of records. It is further contended that if the competent authority has deferred the matter considering the serious dispute of title involved in between the private parties including the petitioner, wherein one suit was also dismissed against the petitioner, in order to avoid complications, the authority was justified in deferring the proceedings. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 42 of the Act, 1976 bars the exercise of jurisdiction by other courts and, therefore, no court would even decide anything unless ceiling proceedings are abated. 6. We have considered the submissions made and have perused the record. 7. We are of the view that question of abatement based upon the provisions of Repeal Act, 1999 is a matter between the tenure- holder and the State. Nevertheless, consequences of abatement are of such nature which may give rise to a situation where maintenance of correct record of rights would be an issue. 8. We have again perused the order dated 09.02.2016 impugned in the writ petition and we find that the authority has not erred in deferring the proceedings of abatement. Admittedly, the proceedings have not been finally decided and, therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner at this stage. 9. We are also of the view that neither Section 42 nor any other provision of the Act of 1976 bars jurisdiction of civil or revenue court to decide the question of title to the land inter se rival claimants thereof. 10. In view of above, while disposing of the review application, we clarify that the competent court(s) where inter se title dispute between the private parties is pending or may be instituted, as the case may be, would not be prejudiced by the pendency of proceedings before the competent authority under the Act of 1976 and/or after Repeal Act, 1999 and shall decide the same on merits expeditiously in accordance with law. 11. As soon as the competent court decides the inter se title dispute, orders passed by it may be placed before the competent authority under Ceiling Act and further orders shall be passed in accordance with law. 12. With the said observations, the review application is disposed of. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 Sazia (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Shekhar B. Saraf, J) Digitally signed by :- SAZIA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad