# Pal Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 1021
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-11-13
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 13520 of 2018
- **Bench:** Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, Piyush Agrawal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pal-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44981
- **Pages:** 18

## Headnote

Act, 1976 - Sections 2(o) - urban land -
Section 2(q) - vacant land - Section
10(5) - notice calling upon the land
owner to hand over possession of the
land declared surplus - Section 10(6) -
power upon the competent authority to
take forceful possession - The Urban Land
(Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 -
section 3 - saving clause - section 4 -
Abatement of legal proceeding - if at the
time of the enforcement of the Repeal Act
the possession has not been taken by the
State in terms of sub-section (5) or subsection (6) of Section 10 of the Act, 1976,
then the proceedings under Section 1976
shall be abated. (Para 22)

Actual possession was never handed over to
the Saharanpur Development Authority except
a Dakhalnama wherein the land has been
shown to be agricultural land - no construction
has been made - In any view of the matter, if
the possession has not been taken in terms of
Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act, 1976, the
petitioners are entitled for the benefit under
Sections 3 and 4 of the Repeal Act. (Para 34)

Held: - The physical possession of the land in
question was never taken from the petitioners -
They are still in physical possession over the
land in question - The ceiling proceedings
stood lapsed and the petitioners are entitled for
the land in question which has been declared
surplus. (Para 35)
1022 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Writ Petition allowed. (E-7)

List of cases cited: -

## Text

_Characters 0–39,926 of 59,327. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39926 for what follows._

1 All. Soni Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1021

9. We fail to understand that what
actually meddling with account means. It
can either be seizure or its operation can
be prohibited. There is no averment in the
entire counter affidavit as to in what
manner meddling of account was there
which was sought to be prohibited.

10. Branch Manager of concerned
Bank instead of making a request for an
order of seizure immediately, it appears,
acted upon request letter on his own and
seized the account which the Banking
Regulations do not permit in the absence
of any order to that effect either by police
or by competent authority.

11. In view of above, we hold that
seizure or withholding of fixed deposit
money of petitioner on its maturity by
Bank is absolutely an illegal act and
cannot be sustained in law and has resulted
in utter harassment to the widow lady.

12. We, therefore, direct the Bank to
immediately credit the amount of fixed
deposit of petitioner in her account and
permit her to withdraw the same.

13. Accordingly, this writ petition is
allowed with a cost which we quantify to
Rs. 25,000/- to be paid to petitioner by the
bank in first instance and same shall be
recovered from the concerned Bank
Manager who has committed default.
----------
(2020)1ILR 1021

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.11.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.
THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

Writ C No. 13520 of 2018

Pal Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Madhusudan Dikshit

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. The Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation)
Act, 1976 - Sections 2(o) - urban land -
Section 2(q) - vacant land - Section
10(5) - notice calling upon the land
owner to hand over possession of the
land declared surplus - Section 10(6) -
power upon the competent authority to
take forceful possession - The Urban Land
(Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 -
section 3 - saving clause - section 4 -
Abatement of legal proceeding - if at the
time of the enforcement of the Repeal Act
the possession has not been taken by the
State in terms of sub-section (5) or subsection (6) of Section 10 of the Act, 1976,
then the proceedings under Section 1976
shall be abated. (Para 22)

Actual possession was never handed over to
the Saharanpur Development Authority except
a Dakhalnama wherein the land has been
shown to be agricultural land - no construction
has been made - In any view of the matter, if
the possession has not been taken in terms of
Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act, 1976, the
petitioners are entitled for the benefit under
Sections 3 and 4 of the Repeal Act. (Para 34)

Held: - The physical possession of the land in
question was never taken from the petitioners -
They are still in physical possession over the
land in question - The ceiling proceedings
stood lapsed and the petitioners are entitled for
the land in question which has been declared
surplus. (Para 35)
1022 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Writ Petition allowed. (E-7)

List of cases cited: -

1. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Hari Ram (2013) 4 SCC 280

2. State of U.P. and another v. Vinod Kumar
Tripathi and others (Special Leave Petition (C)
No. 16582 of 2014

3. State of U.P. and another v. Nek Singh 2010
LawSuit (All) 3581

4. Ram Chandra Pandey v. State of U.P. and
others 2010 (82) ALR 136

5. Ehsan v. State of U.P. and another (Writ C
No. 21009 of 2012

6. Lalji v. State of U.P. and others 2018
LawSuit (All) 1276: 2018 (5) ADJ 566

7. Yasin and others v. State of U.P. and others
2014 (4) ADJ 305 (DB)

8. State of Assam v. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma and
others (2015) 5 SCC 321
9. State of U.P. and others v. Surendra Pratap
and others AIR 2016 SC 2712

10. Shiv Ram Singh v. State of U.P. and others
2015 (5) AWC 4918

11. Gajanan Kamlya v. Addl. Collector & Comp.
Auth.& Ors. JT 2014 (3) SC 211

12. Special Leave Petition (C) No.17799 of
2015

13. Special Leave Petition (C) No. 38922 of 2013

14. State of U.P. and another v. Vinod Kumar
Tripathi and others

15. State of Uttar Pradesh and another v. Nek
Singh 2010 LawSuit (All) 3581

16. Ram Singh v. State of U.P. and others 2013
(7) ADJ 662 (DB)

17. State of U.P. Thru Secy Avas Avam Shahri
Niyojan v. Ruknuddin and others (Writ-C No.
54830 of 2011

18. Mohd. Islam & 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. in
Writ Petition No. 15864 of 2015

19. Rati Ram Vs. State of U.P. & Others 2018
(4) ALJ 338

20. Mohammad Suaif and another v. State of
U.P. and others 2019 (5) ADJ 764 (DB)

21. Shiv Ram Singh 2015 (5) AWC 4918

22. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma (2015) 5 SCC 321

(Delivered by Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal, J.)

1. By means of the present petition,
the petitioners seek a writ of mandamus
declaring the entire proceedings, initiated
against the petitioners under the Urban
Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 as
abated in view of the Urban Land (Ceiling
& Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.

2. The brief facts of the case on
record are that the petitioners claim that an
area of 8041.08 square meters of Khasra
Nos. 271 Mi, 272 Mi, 277 Mi, 289 Mi,
279 Mi, 290 Mi, 291 Mi, 392 Mi, 330 Mi
and 331 Mi situated in Village -
Shekhpura Kadeem, District Saharanpur
and Khasra No. 61 situated in Village -
Chakpuragpur be exempted from the
ceiling proceedings as the petitioners
claim to be the owners of the said land.

3. The proceedings under Urban
Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976
(hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act of
1976')
were
initiated
against
the
petitioner's predecessor. Thereafter, the
father of the petitioners filed statement
under section 6(1) of the Act of 1976. As
the land was agricultural land and does not
come under section 2(o) of the Act of
1976,
i.e.,
the
'vacant
land',
the
proceedings of ceiling were dropped on
29.09.1986. Thereafter, again the ceiling
1 All. Pal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1023
proceedings were initiated against the
father of the petitioners. On 29.09.1987,
the
Mahayojana
(Master
Plan)
was
introduced in Saharanpur Nagar Basti and
on the basis of the old returns, draft
statement under section 8(3) of the Act of
1976 was issued on 15.03.1991, in which
the total land/building of the tenure holder
measuring 11,397.23 square meters and
thereafter, a total area of 8041.08 square
meters from Khasra Nos. 271 Mi, 272 Mi,
277 Mi, 289 Mi, 279 Mi, 290 Mi, 291 Mi,
392 Mi, 330 Mi and 331 Mi situated in
Village - Shekhpura Kadeem, District
Saharanpur and Khasra No. 61 situated in
Village - Chakpuragpur was proposed to
be declared surplus. It is averred that by ex
parte order dated 12.06.1998 under section
8(4) of the Act, the land in question was
declared surplus.

4. Thereafter, notification under
section 10(1) of the Act of 1976 and
notification under section 10(3) of the Act
of 1976 were sent for publication in the
official
Gazette
on
26.03.1993
and
21.08.1993
respectively.
After
the
publication of the notification, notice
under section 10(5) of the Act of 1976 was
issued to the tenure holder on 27.01.1994,
calling
upon
the
tenure
holder
to
voluntarily surrender their surplus vacant
land of 8246.00 square meters. This notice
is alleged to be served upon the tenure
holders personally by process server.

5. On 29.03.1998, the State claims
that Parwana Amal Daramad was issued
and the name of the State Government was
recorded in the revenue records pursuant
to the notice under section 10(5) of the Act
of 1976. Thereafter, the surplus land was
handed
over
to
the
Saharanpur
Development Authority on 19.02.2002 and
since then, the land in question is in the
custody
of
Saharanpur
Development
Authority.

6. It is averred that the petitioners are
still in physical possession of the land in
question, which has been declared surplus.
It is further averred that no notice under
section 10(5) of the Act of 1976 was
issued to the petitioners and the petitioners
have never signed any document regarding
delivery of possession and in view of
section 10(6) of the Act of 1976, no
forcible possession was taken by the State
Government from the petitioners and
actual tenure holder, i.e., the father of the
petitioners. It is further averred that the
petitioners
have
not
received
any
compensation of the land in dispute which
has been declared surplus. It is further
averred that the State Government is
alleged to have transferred the land in
question
in
favour
of
Saharanpur
Development Authority on 19.02.2002,
much after the coming into force of the
Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation)
Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to
as, 'the Act of 1999'). It is clear from the
record that the land is agricultural land
which shows that at the time of handing
over the possession to the Saharanpur
Development Authority, the land was not
of urban land, but it was agricultural land.
It is further averred that in terms of section
2(o) of the Act of 1976, the urban land is
defined which does not include the land
which is mainly used for the purposes of
agriculture. As per section 2(q) of the Act
of 1976, the "vacant land" is defined as the
land not being the land mainly for the
purposes of agriculture.

7. A counter affidavit has been filed
on behalf of the State - respondents, in
which it is contended that due process of
law as prescribed under the relevant Act
1024 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
has been followed and only thereafter, the
physical possession of the land has been
taken in an absolutely legal manner. It has
been further averred in the counter
affidavit
that
after
publication
of
notification in the Gazette under sections
10(1) and 10(3) of the Act of 1976, the
land vested in the State Government.
Thereafter, notice under section 10(5) of
the Act was issued on 17.01.1994, which
was duly served upon the tenure holder
and the possession of the surplus land was
taken on 27.03.1998 after adopting all
procedures as per the law. Thereafter, the
aforesaid surplus land was handed over to
the Saharanpur Development Authority on
19.02.2002 for implementation of the
Master Plan. In support of the submission,
the possession letter dated 27.03.1998 has
been annexed along with the counter
affidavit to justify the taking over the
possession much before the enforcement
of the repeal Act of 1999.

8. We have heard Shri Madhusudan
Dikshit, learned counsel for the petitioners
and learned standing counsel for the State
- respondents and perused the material on
record.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the State Government has
failed to establish that actual possession
has been taken in terms of sections 10(5)
and 10(6) of the Act, 1976. It is further
submitted that the tenure holder has not
handed over the possession of the declared
surplus land to the Collector in terms of
the notice under section 10(5) of the Act,
which is evident from the material on
record. He further submits that no
proceedings,
whatsoever,
have
been
initiated against the tenure holder in terms
of section 10(6) of the Act of 1976 as no
pleading has been taken by the answering
respondents in their counter affidavit that
forcible possession has been taken over
under section 10(6) of the Act of 1976. He
further submits that in view of the said
fact, the entire proceedings initiated
against the petitioners stood abated in
terms of section 3 of the Act of 1999 and
the expression "deemed to have been
acquired" or "deemed to have been vested"
are not applicable in view of the aforesaid
fact as the State has failed to establish that
the actual possession has been taken over
in view of sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the
Act.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submits that it is not the case of the
respondents that the tenure holder has
voluntarily surrendered the possession of
the land in question. Thus, it was
imperative that the possession should have
been taken in terms of section 10(6) of the
Act of 1976 and there is no pleading in the
affidavit filed by the respondents that
forcible possession was taken from the
tenure holder and the land in question has
been
transferred
in
favour
of
the
Saharanpur Development Authority on
19.02.2002 (as mentioned in paragraph no.
3 of the counter affidavit). It is further
argued by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the possession memo does
not bear the signatures of the tenure holder
at the time of delivery of possession of the
land in question. The said fact itself shows
that the original tenure holder has not
given possession voluntarily pursuant to
the notice under section 10(5) of the Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further
submits that in view of the fact that the
land in question is still in possession of the
petitioners
and
no
compensation,
whatsoever, has been paid, therefore, the
proceedings stood abated when the repeal
Act of 1999 came into force.
1 All. Pal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1025

11. Sri Dikshit has placed reliance on
the judgments of the Supreme Court in the
case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Hari Ram
(2013) 4 SCC 280; State of U.P. and
another v. Vinod Kumar Tripathi and
others (Special Leave Petition (C) No.
16582 of 2014 decided with Special Leave
Petition (C) No. 38922 of 2013, on 19th
January, 2016); and the judgments of this
Court in State of U.P. and another v. Nek
Singh 2010 LawSuit (All) 3581; Ram
Chandra Pandey v. State of U.P. and
others 2010 (82) ALR 136; Ehsan v. State
of U.P. and another (Writ C No. 21009 of
2012, decided on 08.10.2018); Lalji v.
State of U.P. and others 2018 LawSuit
(All) 1276: 2018 (5) ADJ 566; and Yasin
and others v. State of U.P. and others
2014 (4) ADJ 305 (DB).

12. Rebutting the submissions of the
learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
standing counsel appearing for the State -
respondents submits that the possession
has been taken over by the State
Government in accordance with law on
27.03.1998 and thereafter, the land in question
was transferred in favour of Saharanpur
Development Authority on 19.02.2002 and the
stand taken by the learned counsel for the
petitioners is of no consequence. In his
submission, the writ petition lacks merit and
deserves to be dismissed.

13. Learned Standing Counsel has
placed reliance on the judgments of the
Supreme Court in the cases of State of
Assam v. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma and others
(2015) 5 SCC 321 and State of U.P. and
others v. Surendra Pratap and others AIR
2016 SC 2712, and judgment of this Court
in Shiv Ram Singh v. State of U.P. and
others 2015 (5) AWC 4918.

14. We have summoned the original
record and we have perused the same. We
find that the record no where indicates as
to how possession was taken and what is
the name of the witness in whose presence
such possession was taken. There is no
name indicated in the counter affidavit
filed by the State. The signature of the
tenure holder is also not there.

15. At this stage, before adverting to the
submissions raised on behalf of the parties, it is
quite relevant to reproduce the relevant
provisions of the Act for proper appreciation of
the controversy involved in the matter.

16. Sections 2(o), 2(q) and subsections (5) and (6) of Section 10 of the
Act, 1976 are reproduced hereunder:

"2(o) "urban land" means,--

(i) any land situated within the
limits of an urban agglomeration and
referred to as such in the master plan; or

(ii) in a case where there is no
master plan, or where the master plan does not
refer to any land as urban land, any land
within the limits of an urban agglomeration
and situated in any area included within the
local limits of a municipality (by whatever
name called), a notified area committee, a
town area committee, a city and town
committee, a small town committee, a
cantonment board or a panchayat,
but does not include any such land which
is mainly used for the purpose of
agriculture.

Explanation.--For the purpose of
this clause and clause (q),--

(A)
"agriculture"
includes
horticulture, but does not include--

(I) raising of grass,

(ii) dairy farming,

(iii) poultry farming,

(iv) breeding of live-stock, and
1026 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(v) such cultivation, or the
growing of such plant, as may be
prescribed;

(B) land shall not be deemed to
be used mainly for the purpose of
agriculture, if such land is not entered in
the revenue or land records before the
appointed day as for the purpose of
agriculture:

Provided that where on any land
which is entered in the revenue or land
records before the appointed day as for
the purpose of agriculture, there is a
building which is not in the nature of a
farm-house, then, so much of the extent of
such land as is occupied by the building
shall not be deemed to be used mainly for
the purpose of agriculture:

Provided further that if any
question arises whether any building is in
the nature of a farm-house, such question
shall be referred to the State Government
and the decision of the State Government
thereon shall be final;

(C) Notwithstanding anything
contained in clause

(B) of this Explanation, land
shall not be deemed to be mainly used for
the purpose of agriculture if the land has
been specified in the master plan for a
purpose other than agriculture;"

"2(q) "vacant land" means land,
not being land mainly used for the purpose
of agriculture, in an urban agglomeration,
but does not include--

(i) land on which construction of
a building is not permissible under the
building regulations in force in the area in
which such land is situated;

(ii) in an area where there are
building regulations, the land occupied by
any building which has been constructed
before, or is being constructed on, the
appointed day with the approval of the
appropriate
authority
and
the
land
appurtenant to such building; and

(iii) in an area where there are
no building regulations, the land occupied
by
any
building
which
has
been
constructed before, or is being constructed
on, the appointed day and the land
appurtenant to such building:

Provided that where any person
ordinarily keeps his cattle, other than for
the purpose of dairy farming or for the
purpose of breeding of live-stock, on any
land situated in a village within an urban
agglomeration (described as a village in
the revenue records), then, so much extent
of the land as has been ordinarily used for
the keeping of such cattle immediately
before the appointed day shall not be
deemed to be vacant land for the purposes
of this clause."

"10(5) Where any vacant land is
vested in the State Government under subsection (3), the competent authority may,
by notice in writing, order any person who
may be in possession of it to surrender or
deliver possession thereof to the State
Government or to any person duly
authorised by the State Government in this
behalf within thirty days of the service of
the notice."

"10(6) If any person refuses or
fails to comply with an order made under
sub-section (5), the competent authority
may take possession of the vacant land or
cause it to be given to the concerned State
Government or to any person duly
authorised by such State Government in
this behalf and may for that purpose use
such force as may be necessary.

Explanation.--In this section, in
sub-section (1) of section 11 and in
sections 14 and 23, "State Government",
in relation to--
1 All. Pal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1027

(a) any vacant land owned by the
Central Government, means the Central
Government;

(b) any vacant land owned by
any State Government and situated in the
Union territory or within the local limits of
a cantonment declared as such under
section 3 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (2
of 1924), means that State Government."

17. Section 2(o) of the Act, 1976
defines "urban land" and Section 2(q)
defines "vacant land". Section 6 of the
Act, 1976 provides that owner of the land
shall submit a statement giving detail of
the vacant land. Section 8(1) enjoins that
the competent authority shall get a survey
of the land conducted and on the basis of
the said survey a draft statement under
sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Act,
1976 was required to be served upon the
land owner calling for objection to the said
statement within thirty days and the order
is passed under sub-section (4) of Section
8 of the Act, 1976 and later a notification
is issued under sub-section (1) of Section
10 for publication in the Gazette giving
particulars of the vacant land. Thereafter
another notice is published stating that the
land shall be deemed to have been vested
on
the
Government
free
from
all
encumbrances. Thereafter a notice under
sub-section (5) of Section 10 of the Act,
1976 is issued calling upon the land owner
to hand over possession of the land
declared surplus. If the land owner fails to
handover the possession voluntarily in
response to the aforementioned notice,
sub-section (6) of Section 10 of the Act,
1976 confers a power upon the competent
authority to take forceful possession.

18. In the year 1999 the Parliament
enacted the Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (for short
Act 15 of 1999). The said Act was adopted
by the State of U.P. also by a notification
dated 18.03.1999. It is apposite to
reproduce Sections 3 and 4 of the Repeal
Act.

"3. Saving.-- (1) The repeal of
the principal Act shall not affect--

(a) the vesting of any vacant
land under sub-section 10, possession of
which has been taken over by the State
Government or any person duly authorized
by the State Government in this behalf or
by the competent authority;

(b) the validity of any order
granting exemption under sub-section (1)
of Section 20 or any action taken
thereunder, notwithstanding any judgment
of any court to the contrary;

(c) any payment made to the
State Government as a condition for
granting exemption under sub-section (1)
of Section 20.

(2) Where--

(a) any land is deemed to have
vested in the State Government under subsection (3) of Section 10 of the principal
Act but possession of which has not been
taken over by the State Government or any
person duly authorized by the State
Government in this behalf or by the
competent authority; and

(b) any amount has been paid by
the State Government with respect to such
land

then, such land shall not be
restored unless the amount paid, if any,
has
been
refunded
to
the
State
Government.

4.
Abatement
of
legal
proceedings.-- All proceedings relating to
any order made or purported to be made
under
the
principal
Act
pending
immediately before the commencement of
1028 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
this Act, before any court, tribunal or
other authority shall abate:

Provided that this section shall
not apply to the proceedings relating to
sections 11,12,13 and 14 of the principal
Act in so far as such proceedings are
relatable to the land, possession of which
has been taken over by the State
Government or any person duly authorised
by the State Government in this behalf or
by the competent authority."

19. In exercise of the powers under
Section 35 of the Act, 1976 the State
Government issued the Directions, 1983
known as The Uttar Pradesh Urban Land
Ceiling (Taking of Possession, Payment of
Amount and Allied Matters) Directions,
1983 (Directions issued by the State
Government under Section 35 of the Act,
1976). The direction no.3 is relevant for
our purpose which is extracted below:

"3.
Procedure
for
taking
possession of vacant land in excess of
ceiling limit.--(1) The competent authority
will maintain a register in Form No.ULC -
1
for
each
case
regarding
which
notification under sub-section (3) of
Section 10 of the Act is published in the
gazette."

4. (1) * * *

(2) An order in Form No. ULCII will be sent to each land holder as
prescribed
under
sub-section
(5)
of
Section 109 of the Act and the date of issue
and service of the order will be entered in
Column 8 of Form No. ULC-I.

(3) On possession of the excess
vacant land being taken in accordance
with the provisions of sub-section (5) or
sub-section (6) of Section 10 of the Act,
entries will be made in a register in Form
ULC-III and also in Column 9 of the Form
No. ULC-1. The competent authority shall
in token of verification of the entries, put
his signatures in Column 11 of Form No.
ULC-1 and Column 10 of Form No. ULCIII.

Form No. ULC-1
Register of notice under Sections 10(3)
and 10(5)

(1)
(2
)
(3)
(4)
(5
)
(6)
(7
)
(8
)
(9
)
(1
0)
(11)
Sl.
No.
Sl
.N
o.
of
re
gi
st
er
of
re
ce
ipt
Sl
.
N
o.
of
re
gi
st
er
of
ta
ki
ng
po
ss
es
sio
n
Case
Nu
mber
Date
of
Noti
ficatio
n
unde
r
Sect
i-on
10(3
)
La
nd
to
be
ac
qu
ire
d
vil
la
ge
M
oh
ali
Date
of
taki
ng
over
poss
essio
n
R
e
m
ar
ks
Si
gn
at
ur
e
of
co
m
pe
tent
au
th
or
ity

Form No. ULC-II
Notice order under Section 10(5)
[See clause (2) of Direction (3)]
In the court of competent authority

U.L.C. ...............

No.....................
Date
..................

Sri/Smt............................... T/o
.........................
1 All. Pal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1029

In exercise of the powers vested
under Section 10(5) of the Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Act
No.33 of 1976), you are hereby informed
that vide Notification No....... dated .....
under Section 10(1) published in Uttar
Pradesh Gazette dated ...... following land
has vested absolutely in the State free from
all encumbrances as a consequence
Notification under Section 10(3) published
in Uttar Pradesh Gazette dated .......
Notification No......... dated .... With effect
from .......... you are hereby ordered to
surrender or deliver the possession of the
land to the Collector of the District
Authorised
in
this
behalf
under
Notification No.324/II-27- U.C.77 dated
February 9, 1977, published in the gazette,
dated March 12, 1977, within thirty days
from the date of receipt of this order
otherwise action under sub-section (6) of
Section 10 of the Act will follow.
Description of vacant land

Loca
tion
Khas
ra
No.
ident
ificat
ion
Area
Remarks
1
2
3
4

Competent Authority

...............................

...............................

No. .......................

Dated.............................

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 maintenancemay, kindly be taken
an intimation be given to the undersigned
along with the copy ofcertificate to verify.

Competent Authority

...............................

..............................."

20.

In
addition,
the
State
Government has issued a Government
Order on 29.09.2015 pursuant to the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case
of Hari Ram (supra) and to avoid the
unnecessary
litigation
the
State
Government has issued detailed directions
in respect of the possession and abatement
of the proceedings. The said Government
Order reads as under:

"la[;k & 2228@vkB&6&15&124 ;wlh@13

izs"kd]

iu/kkjh ;kno

lfpo]

mRrj izns'k 'kkluA

lsok esa]

ftykf/kdkjh]

xksj[kiqj] okjk.klh] bykgkckn] y[kuÅ]
dkuiqj

vkxjk] esjB] eqjknkckn] vyhsx<] cjsyh]
lgkjuiqjA

vkokl ,oa 'kgjh fu;kstu vuqHkkx&6

y[kuÅ% fnukad 29 flrEcj 2015

fo"k;& uxj Hkwfe 1⁄4vf/kdre lhek ,oa
fofu;eu1⁄2 fujlu vf/kfu;e] 1999 rrdze eas fuxZr
'kklukns'k rFkk ek0 mPpre U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ;
fnukad 11-03-2013 ds lEcU/k easaA
&&&&&&

egksn;]

mi;qDZr fo"k; ij eq>s ;g dgus dk
funsZ'k gqvk gS fd Hkkjr ljdkj ds vf/kfu;e
la[;k&15@1999 fnukad 18-03-1999 }kjk uxj Hkwfe
1⁄4vf/kdre lhek ,oa fofu;eu1⁄2 vf/kfu;e 1976 dks
fujflr djrs gq, uxj Hkwfe 1⁄4vf/kdre lhek ,oa
fofu;eu1⁄2 fujlu vf/kfu;e 1999 izk[;kfir fd;k
x;k ftlds dze esa 'kklukns'k la[;k& 502@9& u0
1030 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Hkw0&99&21;w0lh0@99] fnukad 31-03-1999 }kjk mDr
fujlu vf/kfu;e dks mRrj izns'k jkT; esa vaxhd`r
fd;k x;kA fujlu vf/kfu;e 1999 dh /kkjk&3 esa
;g izkfo/kku gS fd ewy vf/kfu;e dk fujlu
fuEufyf[kr dks izHkkfor ugha djsxk&

1⁄411⁄2 1⁄4d1⁄2 /kkjk&10 dh mi/kkjk& 1⁄431⁄2 ds
v/khu ,slh fjDr Hkwfe dk fufgr gksuk] ftldk dCtk
jkT; ljdkj ;k jkT; ljdkj }kjk bl fufeRr
lE;d :i ls vf/kd'rd fdlh O;fDr ;k l{ke
izkf/kdkjh us ys fy;k gSA

1⁄4[k1⁄2 /kkjk& 20 dh mi/kkjk& 1⁄411⁄2 ds
v/khu NwV nsus laca/kh fdlh vkns'k ;k mlds v/khu
dh x;h fdlh dk;Zokgh dh fdlh U;k;ky; ds fdlh
fu.kZ; esa mlds foL) fdlh ckr ds gksrs gq, Hkh
fof/kekU;rk%

1⁄4x1⁄2 /kkjk& 20 dh mi/kkjk& 1⁄411⁄2 ds v/khu
iznku dh x;h NwV dh 'krZ ds :i es jkT; ljdkj
dks fd;k x;k dksbZ lank;%

1⁄421⁄2 tgka&

1⁄4d1⁄2 ewy vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&10 dh
mi/kkjk 1⁄431⁄2 ds v/khu fdlh Hkwfe dks jkT; ljdkj esa
fufgr gksuk ekuh x;h gS fdUrq ftldk dCtk jkT;
ljdkj ;k jkT; ljdkj }kjk bl fufeRr lE;d :i
ls izkf/kd`r fdlh O;fDr ;k l{ke izkf/kdkjh }kjk ugh
fy;k x;k % vkSj

1⁄4x1⁄2 ,slh fdlh Hkwfe ds ckcr ftlds fy,
jkT; ljdkj }kjk fdlh jde dk lank; dj fn;k
x;k gS rc rd izR;kofrZr ugh dh tk; vkSj tc
rd fd jkT; ljdkj dks lank; dh x;h jde dk
;fn dksbZ gks] izfrnk; ugh dj fn;k tkrkA

mDr
ds
dze
esa
'kklukns'k
la[;k&777@9u0Hkw0&135 ;w0lh0@99 fnukad 09-022000] 'kklukns'k la[;k&1623@ 9&u0Hkw0&2000
fnukad
09-08-2000
,oa
'kklukns'k
la[;k&
190@9&vk&6&2001 fnukad 24-01-2001 fuxZr fd;s
x;s ftles eq[; :i ls ;g O;oLFkk dh xbZ fd ewy
vf/kfu;e /kkjk &8 1⁄441⁄2 ds vUrxZr tks Hkwfe fjDr
?kksf"kr dh xbZ Fkh vkSj /kkjk&10 1⁄431⁄2 ds vUrxZr jkT;
esa fufgr gks pqdh Fkh ,oa /kkjk&10 1⁄451⁄2 dh dk;Zokgh
dk vkns'k gks pqdk Fkk ijUrq bl Hkwfe ij jkT;
ljdkj dk dCtk izkIr ugh gks ldk Fkk] ,slh Hkwfe ds
lEcU/k es ewy Hkw/kkjd dks vnk dh xbZ /kujkf'k
Hkw/kkjd }kjk okil djus ij Hkwfe ewy Hkw/kkjd dks
izR;kofrZr dh tk ldrh gS fdUrq vnk dh xbZ
/kujkf'k Hkw& /kkjd }kjk okil u djus dh n'kk esa
Hkwfe ij dCtk fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k es fof/k vuqlkj
vfxze dk;Zokgh vey es yk;h tk;A ;g Hkh O;oLFkk
dh xbZ fd ftl Hkwfe ds lEcU/k esa /kkjk&10 1⁄451⁄2 dh
dk;Zokgh ds mijkUr /kkjk&10 1⁄461⁄2 dh dk;Zokgh iwoZ
gks pqdh gS vkSj Hkwfe ij jkT; ljdkj }kjk dCtk
fy;k tk pqdk gS og ljIyl Hkwfe vfUre :i ls
jkT; ljdkj esa fufgr ekuh tk;sxhA

3- uxj Hkwfe lhekjksi.k& xksj[kiqj]
okjk.klh] bykgkckn] y[kuÅ] dkuiqj] vkxjk] esjB]
eqjknkckn] vyhsx<] cjsyh] lgkjuiqj esa yfEcr vcZu
lhfyax izdj.kksa dk leqfpr :i ls fuLrkj.k us gksus
dh fLFkfr es Hkw&/kkjdksa@okfn;ksa }kjk ek0 mPp
U;k;ky; esa vf/kd la[;k eas fjV ;kfpdk;as ;ksftr
dh tk jgh gSA uxj cLrh dk;kZy;ksa }kjk fjV
;kfpdkvksa eas foHkkxh; i{k le;kUrxZr lk{;kas lfgr
izcyrk ls izLrqr u fd;s tkus ds dkj.k ek0
U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'kksa ds dze esa 'kklu dks
vleatliw.kZ fLFkfr dk lkeuk djuk iM+ jgk gSA

4- vcZu lhfyax ds vU; izdj.k esa jkT;
ljdkj }kjk ek0 mPppe U;k;ky; ubZ fnYyh esa
fo'ks"k vuqefr ;kfpdk la[;k&12960@2008 mRrj
izns'k jkT; cuke gjhjke ;ksftr dh x;hA dkykUrj
es vU; tuinksa ds vcZu lhfyax ls lacf/kr izdj.kksa
es ;ksftr fo'ks"k vuqefr ;kfpdk;sa mDr fo'ks"k
vuqefr ;kfpdk ls Dyc dh x;hA mDr fo'ks"k
vuqefr ;kfpdk la[;k&12960@2008 rFkk mlls
Dyc vU; fo'ks"k vuqefr ;kfpdkvksa esa ikfjr ek0
mPpre U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; fnukad 11-03-2013 es
vcZu lhfyax ls lacf/kr izdj.kksa es ekxZn'kZd fl)kUr
izfrikfnr fd;s x;s gSaA fu.kZ; fnukad 11-03-2013 dk
egRoiw.kZ ,oa fdz;kRed va'k fuEuor gS%&

izLrj& 39

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
18.3.1999. 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
1 All. Pal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1031
respondent is entitled to get the benefit of
Section 3 of the Repeal Act.

izLrj&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
cost.

5- uxj Hkwfe 1⁄4vf/kdre lhek ,oa
fofu;eu1⁄2 fujlu vf/kfu;e] 1999 esa fofgr izkfo/kku
rFkk rRdze esa fuxZr 'kklukns'k fnukad 09-02-2000]
'kklukns'k fnukad 09-08-2000 ,oa 'kklukns'k fnukad
24-01-2001 Lor% Li"V gSA fo'ks"k vuqefr ;kfpdk
la[;k&12960@2008 mRrj izns'k jkT; cuke gjhjke
rFkk mlls Dyc vU; fo'ks"k vuqefr ;kfpdkvksa esa
ikfjr ek0 mPpre U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; fnukad 11-032013 esa mfYyf[kr fl)kUr@vkns'k Hkh Lor% Li"V
gSaA

6- d`i;k uxj Hkwfe 1⁄4vf/kdre lhek ,oa
fofu;eu1⁄2 fujlu vf/kfu;e] 1999 rFkk mDr
'kklukns'k fnukad 09-02-2000] 'kklukns'k fnukad 0908-2000 ,oa 'kklukns'k fnukad 24-01-2001 esa fofgr
O;oLFkk] fo'ks"k vuqefr ;kfpdk la[;k&12960@2008
mRrj izns'k jkT; cuke gjhjke esa ikfjr ek0 mPpre
U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; fnukad 11-03-2013 esa mfYyf[kr
fl)kUrksa@vkns'kksa ds vkyksd esa yfEcr izdj.kksa es
Legal ingredients ns[krs gq, vko';d dk;Zokgh
dh tk;A

Hkonh;

g0 viBuh;

1⁄4iu/kkjh ;kno1⁄2

lfpo

la[;k ,oa fnukad rnSoA

izfrfyfi fuEufyf[kr dks lwpukFkZ ,oa
vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf"krA

1- funs'kd uxj Hkwfe lhekjksi.k] m0iz0
tokgj Hkou& y[kuÅ

2- l{ke izkf/kdkjh uxj Hkwfe lhekjksi.k
xksj[kiqj] okjk.klh] bykgkckn] y[kuÅ] dkuiqj]
vkxjk] esjB] eqjknkckn] vyhsx<] cjsyh] lgkjuiqjA

3- eq[; LFkk;h vf/koDrk ek0 mPp
U;k;ky;] bykgkckn

4- xkMZ QkbZyA

vkKk ls

1⁄4dYyw
izlkn f}osnh1⁄2 mi lfpoA"

21. In view of the aforesaid
provisions, referred to above, the question,
which emerges to be decided by this
Court, is as to whether in the present set of
fact ceiling proceedings shall be abated in
view of the sub-section (2) of section 3 of
the Act of 1999.

22. The Supreme Court in various
cases has taken the view that if at the time
of the enforcement of the Repeal Act the
possession has not been taken by the State
in terms of sub-section (5) or sub-section
(6) of Section 10 of the Act, 1976, then the
proceedings under Section 1976 shall be
abated.

23.

The
Supreme
Court
has
elaborately considered the scope of subsection (5) and sub-section (6) of Section
10 of the Act, 1976 and the directions
framed by the State Government under
Section 35 of the Act, 1976 and the
directions framed by the State Government
under U.P. Urban Land Ceiling (Taking of
Possession, Payment of Amount and
Allied Matters) Direction 1983 in the case
of State of U.P. v. Hari Ram (2013) 4 SCC
280. The relevant part of the judgment of
the Supreme Court reads thus:

"30. Vacant land, it may be
noted, is not actually acquired but deemed
to have been acquired, in that deeming
things to be what they are not. Acquisition,
therefore, does not take possession unless
1032 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 words
"acquired" and "vested" have 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 legislative
intent.

Voluntary surrender

31. The "vesting" in sub-section
(3) of Section 10, in our view, means
vesting
of
title
absolutely
and not
possession though nothing stands in the
way of a person voluntarily surrendering
or delivering possession. The Court in
Maharaj Singh v. State of U.P.13, while
interpreting Section 117(1) of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950 held that "vesting" is a word of
slippery import and has many meaning
and the context controls the text and the
purpose and scheme project the particular
semantic shade or nuance of meaning. The
Court in Rajendra Kumar v. Kalyan14
held as follows: (SCC p. 114, para 28)

"28.
...We
do
find
some
contentious substance in the contextual
facts, since vesting shall have to be a
"vesting" certain. 'To "vest", generally
means to give a property in.' (Per Brett,
L.J. Coverdale v. Charlton15 : Stroud's
Judicial Dictionary, 5th Edn. Vol. VI.)
Vesting in favour of the unborn person and
in the contextual facts on the basis of a
subsequent adoption after about 50 years
without any authorization cannot however
but be termed to be a contingent event. To
'vest', cannot be termed to be an executor
devise. Be it noted however, that 'vested'
does not necessarily and always mean
'vest in possession' but includes 'vest in
interest' as well."

32. 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.

33. Before we examine subsection (5) and sub-section (6) of Section
10, let us examine the meaning of subsection (4) of Section 10 of the Act, which
says that during the period commencing
on the date of publication under subsection (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 the land.
1 All. Pal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1033

Peaceful dispossession

34. Sub-section (5) of Section 10,
for the first time, speaks 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.

35. If de facto possession has
already passed on to the State Government
by the two deeming provisions under subsection (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 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.