Summary
The Supreme Court held that ceiling proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 for excess land in Surat abated under Section 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999, because the State never took de facto possession: the mandatory Section 10(5) notice went to the original landholder's family and not to the appellants, who were in actual possession of the sub-plots, and a panchnama and revenue entry showed only paper possession; the appellants were held entitled to consequential reliefs.
Issues
- Whether service of notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act on the persons actually in possession of the land is mandatory, so that its omission leaves possession untaken and the proceedings abate under Section 4 of the Repeal Act, 1999.
- Whether recording the land in the State's name and a panchnama of taking possession, without actual transfer of possession, saves the proceedings from abatement.
- Whether the appellants, claiming under sale agreements from the original landholder after cancellation of an auction sale, could claim the benefit of Section 10(5) and Section 4 of the Repeal Act.
Provisions considered
- Section 10(3), Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976Deemed acquisition and vesting under this sub-section transfer title and only de jure possession, not de facto possession, following Hari Ram. (¶¶ 6, 8, 10, 17, 17.1, 22.4)
- Section 10(5) and 10(6), Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976After vesting, de facto possession passes only by voluntary surrender, by notice under Section 10(5) served on the person in possession, or by forcible dispossession under Section 10(6) after the notice period; the notice requirement is mandatory ('may' read as 'shall'). (¶¶ 9, 17.2, 18, 18.1, 19.1, 19.2, 22.4, 22.8)
- Section 3, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999The savings clause preserves vesting only where possession has been taken over; it did not apply since the appellants remained in possession. (¶¶ 13, 19, 22.6, 22.8)
- Section 4 and proviso, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999Pending proceedings abate; the proviso, for proceedings under Sections 11 to 14 relating to land whose possession has been taken, did not apply, so the proceedings abated in full. (¶¶ 14, 18.3, 22.5, 22.8, 22.9)
Held
- Section 10 of the ULC Act distinguishes vesting of excess land in the State from taking possession of it; vesting under Section 10(3) carries only de jure possession, and de facto possession passes only by voluntary surrender, peaceful delivery after notice under Section 10(5), or forcible dispossession under Section 10(6). (¶¶ 10, 17.1, 17.2)
- Notice under Section 10(5) is mandatory and must be served on the person actually in possession; mere issuance without service does not suffice, and without lawful transfer of possession the State's possession is only paper possession. (¶¶ 18.1, 19.2, 19.3, 19.4)
- Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma, on waiver of a Section 10(5) objection by delay, applies where de facto possession was in fact taken, even by force; it does not dilute Hari Ram where no possession was ever transferred. (¶¶ 20, 20.1, 20.4)
- Since the notice was addressed to the original landholder's widow and not to the appellants, who were in actual possession of the sub-plots, possession was not taken by any lawful mode; the panchnama, the compensation order and the revenue entry in the State's name did not show transfer of de facto possession, so the proceedings abated under Section 4 of the Repeal Act and the proviso did not apply. (¶¶ 22.2, 22.3, 22.4, 22.5, 22.7)
- The propriety of the appellants' sale deeds was immaterial to their right to notice, because Section 10(5) requires notice to whoever is in possession; the High Court erred in treating the appellants as illegal occupants not in possession and in discounting electricity bills in their names. (¶¶ 22.8, 23)
- Abatement under Section 4 operates by force of law on the facts, so the appellants were entitled to consequential reliefs; refusal of NOCs for want of valid title and the argument that only the NOC prayer had been pressed could not stand. (¶ 22.9)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgments in LPA No. 2024/2010 (23.07.2014) and Special Civil Application No. 533/2009 (08.02.2010) set aside; appellants entitled to consequential reliefs on abatement; no costs.