Case: 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 deemedto have beenvested 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.

Court's reasoning:
Vacant land, it may be noted, is not actually acquired but deemedto have beenacquired, in that deeming things to be what they are not. Acquisition, therefore, does not take possession unless there is an indication to the contrary. It is trite law that in construing a deeming provision, it is necessary to bear in mind the legislative purpose. The purpose of the Act is to impose ceiling on vacant land, for the acquisition of land in excess of the ceiling limit thereby to regulate construction on such lands, to prevent concentration of urban lands in hands of few persons, so as to bring about equitable distribution. For achieving that object, various procedures have to be followed for acquisition and vesting. When we look at those words in the above setting and the provisions to follow such as sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 10, the wordshave different meaning and content. Under Section 10(3), what is vested is de jure possession not de facto, for more reasons than one because we are testing the expression on a statutory hypothesis and such an hypothesis can be carried only to the extent necessary to achieve the legislativeare of the view that so far as the present case is concerned, the wordtakes 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.30. Before we examine sub-section (5) and sub-section (6) of Section 10, let us examine the meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the Act, which says that during the period commencing on the date of publication under sub-section (1), ending with the day specified in the declaration made under sub-section (3), no person shall transfer by way of sale, mortgage, gift or otherwise, any excess vacant land, specified in the notification and any such transfer made in contravention of the Act shall be deemed to be null and void. Further, it also says that no person shall alter or cause to be altered the use of such excess vacant land. Therefore, from the date of publication of the notification under sub-section (1) and ending with the date specified in the declaration made in sub-section (3), there is no question of disturbing the possession of a person, the possession, therefore, continues to be with the holder of thede 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 expressionany land isunder 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 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. Subsection (5) of Section 10 visualizes a situation of surrendering and delivering possession, peacefully while sub-section (6) of Section 10 contemplates a situation of forcefulmere 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 18.3.1999. 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 land owner or holder can claim the benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal Act. The State Government in this appeal could not establish any of those situations and hence the High Court is right in holding that the respondent is entitled to get the benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal Act.