Appeal concerning the acquisition of excess land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, and the subsequent Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. The central issue revolves around whether the State government had taken actual physical possession of the disputed land before the Repeal Act came into force, as this determines if the acquisition proceedings remain valid or abate. The document meticulously examines the mandatory procedures for notice and possession outlined in Section 10 of the original Act, contrasting differing interpretations by a Single Judge and a Division Bench of the High Court, and referencing various Supreme Court precedents to clarify the legal requirements for valid possession and the implications of procedural non-compliance. Ultimately, the judgment emphasizes the importance of actual physical possession over mere “paper possession” and the need for strict adherence to statutory provisions in expropriatory legislation affecting property rights.
(A) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, Section10(3), 10(5) – Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 – Urban Land Ceiling – Excess land – Surrendering possession – Sub-section (5) of Section 10 talks of “possession” which says where any land is vested in the State Government under sub- section (3) of Section 10, the competent authority may, by notice in writing, order any person, who may be in possession of it to surrender or transfer possession to the State Government or to any other person, duly authorized by the State Government – Held that if de facto possession has already passed on to the State Government by the two deeming provisions under sub-section (3) to Section 10, there is no necessity of using the expression “where any land is vested.” under sub-section (5) to Section 10 – Surrendering or transfer of possession under sub-section (3) to Section 10 can be voluntary so that the person may get the compensation as provided under Section 11 of the Act, 1976 early – Once there is no voluntary surrender or delivery of possession, necessarily the State Government has to issue notice in writing under sub- section (5) to Section 10 to surrender or deliver possession – Sub-section (5) of Section 10 visualizes a situation of surrendering and delivering possession, peacefully while sub-section (6) of Section 10 contemplates a situation of forceful dispossession.
(Para 37 and 38)
(B) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, Section10(3), 10(5) – Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 – Urban Land (Ceiling – Surrendering possession – Held that the mere vesting of the land under sub- section (3) of Section 10 would not confer any right on the State Government to have de facto possession of the vacant land unless there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land before 18.03.1999 – State has to establish that there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land or surrender and delivery of peaceful possession under sub- section (5) of Section 10 or forceful dispossession under sub-section (6) of Section 10 – On failure to establish any of those situations, the landowner or holder can claim the benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999 – In the case on hand, the State Government has not been able to establish any of those situations and hence the learned Single Judge was right in holding that the appellant herein is entitled to get the benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999.
(Para 39)
(C) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, Section10(3), 10(5) – Constitution of India, Article 226 – Urban Land Ceiling – Excess land – Question of possession – Disputed question of fact – Held that there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to indicate that the High Court in the proceedings, like the one on hand, is debarred from holding such an inquiry – The proposition that a petition under Article 226 must be rejected simply on the ground that it cannot be decided without determining the disputed question of fact is not warranted by any provisions of law nor by any decision of this Court – A rigid application of such proposition or to treat such proposition as an inflexible rule of law or of discretion will necessarily make the provisions of Article 226 wholly illusory and ineffective more particularly Section 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act, 1976 respectively – Obviously, the High Court must avoid such consequences.
(Para 49)
(D) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 – Urban Land Ceiling – Excess land – Effect of repeal Act, 1999 – If the landowner remains in physical possession, then irrespective of his land being declared surplus and/or entry being made in favour of the State in revenue records, he will not be divested of his rights – Even if compensation is received that also will not dis-entitle him to claim the benefit if compensation is refunded, provided he is in actual physical possession – Payment of compensation has no co-relation with the taking of actual physical possession as with the vesting land compensation becomes payable which can be paid without taking actual physical possession.
(Para 40)
(E) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, Section10(3), 10(5) – Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 – Urban Land Ceiling – Excess land – Question of possession – The propositions of law governing the issue of possession in context with Sections 10(5) and 10(6) respectively of the Act, 1976 read with Section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999 summed up thus:
[1] The Repeal Act, 1999 clearly talks about the possession being taken under Section 10(5) or Section 10(6) of the Act, 1976, as the case may be.
[2] It is a statutory obligation on the part of the competent authority or the State to take possession strictly as permitted in law.
[3] In case the possession is purported to have been taken under Section 10(6) of the Act, 1976 the Court is still obliged to look into whether “taking of such possession” is valid or invalidated on any of the considerations in law.
[4] The possession envisaged under Section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999 is de facto and not de jure only.
[5] The mere vesting of “land declared surplus” under the Act without resuming “de facto possession” is of no consequence and the land holder is entitled to the benefit of the Repeal Act, 1999.
[6] The requirement of giving notice under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 10 respectively is mandatory. Although the word “may” has been used therein, yet the word “may” in both the sub-sections should be understood as “shall” because a Court is obliged to decide the consequences that the legislature intended to follow from the failure to implement the requirement.
[7] The mere vesting of the land under sub-section (3) of Section 10 would not confer any right on the State Government to have de facto possession of the vacant land unless there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land before 18th March 1999.
[8] The State has to establish by cogent evidence on record that there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land or surrender and delivery of peaceful possession under sub-section (6) of Section 10 or forceful dispossession under sub-section (6) of Section 10.
(Para 41)
(F) Intra-court appeal – Scope – Held that an intra-court appeal is really not a statutory appeal preferred against the judgment and order of an inferior to the superior court – The appeal inter se in a High Court from one court to another is really an appeal from one coordinate bench to another coordinate bench and it is for this reason that a writ cannot be issued by one Bench of the High Court to another Bench of the High Court nor can even the High Court issue writ to a High Court – Thus, unlikely an appeal, in general, an intra court appeal is an appeal on principle and that is why, unlike an appeal, in an ordinary sense, such as a criminal appeal, where the whole evidence on record is examined afresh by the appellate court, what is really examined, in an intra court appeal, is the legality and validity of a judgment and/or order of the learned Single Judge and it can be set aside or should be set aside only when there is a patent error on the face of the record or the judgment is against the established or settled principles of law – If two views are possible and a view, which is reasonable and logical has been adopted by a Single Judge, the other view howsoever appealing may be to the Division Bench, it is the view adopted by the learned Single Judge, which should, normally, by allowed to prevail.
(Para 42)
(G) Constitution of India, Article 226 – Writ jurisdiction – Disputed question of facts – Normally, the disputed questions of fact are not investigated or adjudicated by a writ court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But the mere existence of the disputed question of fact, by itself, does not take away the jurisdiction of this writ court in granting appropriate relief to the petitioner. In a case where the Court is satisfied, like the one on hand, that the facts are disputed by the State merely to create a ground for the rejection of the writ petition on the ground of disputed questions of fact, it is the duty of the writ court to reject such contention and to investigate the disputed facts and record its finding if the particular facts of the case, like the one at hand, was required in the interest of justice.
(Para 48)
(H) Constitution of India, Article 226 – Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, Section10(3), 10(5) – Writ jurisdiction –Excess land – Question as to possession – Disputed question of fact – If the only issue, that revolves around the entire debate is one relating to actual taking over of the physical possession of the excess land under the provisions of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 10 of the Act, 1976 respectively, then in such circumstances, the writ court has no other option but to go into the factual aspects and take an appropriate decision in that regard – The issue of possession, by itself, will not become a disputed question of fact – If all that has been said by the State is to be accepted as a gospel truth and nothing shown by the landowner is to be looked into on the ground that a writ court cannot go into disputed questions of fact, then the same may lead to a serious miscarriage of justice.
(Para 53)
(I) Constitution of India, Article 226 – Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, Section10(3), 10(5) – Writ jurisdiction – Excess land – Question as to possession – Disputed question of facts – Mixed question of law and fact – Held that the issue as regards taking over of the actual physical possession of the excess land in accordance with the provisions of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 10 of the Act, 1976 could be said to be a mixed question of law and fact and not just a question of fact – Mixed question of law and fact refers to a question which depends on both law and fact for its solution – In resolving a mixed question of law and fact, a reviewing court must adjudicate the facts of the case and decide relevant legal issues at the same time – Mixed questions of law and fact are defined “as questions in which the historical facts are admitted or established, the rule of law is resolved and the issue is whether the facts satisfy the statutory standard, or to put it another way, whether the rule of law as applied to the established facts is or is not violated.
(Para 54)
M/S A.P. Electrical Equipment … V. The Tahsildar
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 274: (DoJ 27-02-2025)
