State Of U.P vs Hari Ram

3. Hari Ram, respondent herein, had filed a statement on 28.9.1976 giving details of the vacant land he was holding in excess of ceiling limit prescribed under the Act, as provided under Section 6 of the Act. The competent authority under the Act surveyed the land and the respondent was served with a draft statement under Section 8(3) of the Act on 13.5.1981, calling for objection to the draft statement within thirty days. No objection was preferred by the respondent and it was found that he was holding excess land measuring 52,513.30 sq. meters and an order to that effect was passed by the competent authority under Section 8(4) of the Act, vide his proceeding dated 29.6.1981.

4. The competent authority later issued a notification dated 12.6.1982 under Section 10(1) of the Ceiling Act, which was published in the Government Gazette on 12.6.1982 giving the particulars of the vacant land held by the respondent. The competent authority then issued a notification dated 22.11.1997, which was published on the same date, stating the land shall be deemed to have been vested with the Government from 12.6.1982, free from all encumbrances. On 10.6.1999, the competent authority vide its letter dated 10.6.1999 informed the Bandobast Chakbandi Adhikar that the surplus land declared as per the Notification stood vested in the State Government. On 19.6.1999, the prescribed authority issued a notice under Section 10(5) of the Act directing the respondent to hand over possession of the land declared as surplus to a duly authorized person. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent preferred an appeal No.29 of 1999 before the District Judge, Varanasi under Section 33 of the Act, contending that before passing the order under Section 8(4) of the Act, no notice, as contemplated under Section 8(3) of the Act, was served on him. The appeal was allowed and the order dated 29.06.1981 was quashed, vide judgment dated 14.12.1999.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, State of U.P., through the competent authority, preferred Civil Misc. Petition No. 47369 of 2000 before the High Court of Allahabad under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and the High Court, after elaborately considering the various contentions, took the view that sub-section (3) of Section 10 does not envisage, taking physical and de facto possession of the surplus land, for which proceedings under sub-section (5) of Section 10 have to be followed. On facts also, the Division Bench found no reason to interfere with the order of the District Judge, and the appeal was dismissed, against which this appeal has been preferred. Following the judgment in Writ Petition No.47369 of 2000, several writ petitions were disposed of by the High Court against which appeals are pending before this Court.

6. We intend to take up the appeal filed against the judgment in Writ Petition No. 47369 of 2000 as the leading case, based on which other appeals can be disposed of.

440. Words and phrases, therefore, occurring in the statute are to be taken not in an isolated or detached manner, it is associated on the context but are read together and construed in the light of the purpose and object of the Act.

Voluntary Surrender

29. We are of the view that so far as the present case is concerned, the word “vesting” takes in every interest in the property including de jure possession and, not de facto but it is always open to a person to voluntarily surrender and deliver possession, under Section 10(3) of the Act.

Peaceful dispossession

Forceful dispossession

Copy forwarded to the Collector ………… with the request that action for immediate taking over of the possession of the above detailed surplus land and its proper maintenance may, kindly be taken an intimation be given to the undersigned along with copy of certificate to verify.

Competent Authority ………………………….

..………………………..”

Effect of the Repeal Act

40. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the judgment of the High Court and the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed so also the other appeals. No documents have been produced by the State to show that the respondents had been dispossessed before coming into force of the Repeal Act and hence, the respondents are entitled to get the benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal Act. However, there will be no order as to costs.