# Smt. Bedo v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 1147
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-11-21
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 33121 of 2017
- **Bench:** Bala Krishna Narayana, Prakash Padia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-bedo-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45125
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

C.S.C.

A.
The
Urban
Land
(Ceiling
and
Regulation) Act, 1976 - Section 6(1) -
Persons holding vacant land in excess of
ceiling limit to file statement - section
10(1) - Acquisition of vacant land in excess
1148 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of ceiling limit - section 10(3) - notification
- 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 and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 -
section 3 - saving clause - section 4 -
Abatement of legal proceedings - The kind
of possession contemplated u/s 3 & 4 of
the Repeal Act, 1999, is actual possession
and not a mere paper possession and if the
possession of the petitioner's land which
was declared surplus land stood vested in
the State Government u/s 10 (3) of the
principal Act was not taken and no
proceedings u/s 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the
principal Act were pending on the date of
coming into force of the Repeal Act, 1999 -
the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of
the Repeal Act, 1999. (Para 27)

There is a dispute about the fact that the
possession of the surplus land was delivered by
the petitioner to the State Government upon
issuance of notice u/s 10 (5) of the principal
Act - no notice under section 10(5) or section
10(6) of the principal Act was ever issued
before possession of the surplus land of the
disputed plot - the petitioner was still in
possession of the surplus area although the
name of State had been mutated in the
revenue record - moved an application before
the competent authority for deleting the entry
made in favour of the State of Uttar Pradesh
and for restoring her name in the revenue
record claiming the benefit of the Repeal Act,
1999.(Para 4 & 32)

Held:- Actual physical possession of the
petitioner's surplus land was never taken by
the State Government from the petitioner and
the petitioner stood in possession of the
surplus land on the date of the coming into
force of the Repeal Act, 1999 - the respondents
directed to expunge the respondent-State from
the revenue record and to restore that of the
petitioner who is the owner of the land in
dispute. (Para 38 & 40)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-7)

List of cases cited: -

## Text

_Characters 0–39,659 of 49,994. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39659 for what follows._

1 All. Rakesh Mahajan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1147
incorporated as a 'sham' or a 'facade' for
execution of the lease in question, in fact
the Company was incorporated at the
insistence of Noida Authority which is
clear from the allotment letter. The lease
deed executed in between Noida and PAN
Realtors Pvt. Limited still subsists and has
not even been determined.

51. Further, there is no material to
suggest that the petitioners herein
Rakesh Mahajan or Nirala Buildcon
exercised pervasive control over Pan
Developers (Pvt.) Limited. The statute
in question being U.P. Urban Planning
Development Act, 1973 does not have
any provision for lifting the corporate
veil. The petitioners are not even a
signatory to the lease deed in question
and thus no case is made out for
piercing the veil for recovery of alleged
dues of PAN Realtors Pvt. Limited from
the petitioners.

52. It is well settled that any action
of the "State" or "an instrumentality of
State" has to be in conformity with law
and has to satisfy the twin tests of having
followed "substantive due process of law"
and "procedural due process of law" and
failure on any of the twin tests renders the
action violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.

53. We have no hesitation in
holding that the actions of the authority
against
both
the
petitioner
falls
miserably short of the twin tests and are
thus violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.

54. Accordingly, the Recovery
Certificate dated 26.8.2019, issued by the
respondent no. 2 and the Citation dated
12.9.2019, issued by the respondent no. 4,
insofar it relates to the petitioners, are
hereby quashed.

55. We clarify that the question of
non-grant of opportunity of hearing
prior
to
issuance
of
a
recovery
certificate has not been gone into in the
present case as we are satisfied that the
recovery against the petitioners for the
alleged dues of PAN Realtors Pvt.
Limited, is wholly illegal.

56. We clarify that the present case
is
confined
only
in
respect
of
Petitioners herein and the Authority is
at liberty to take steps for recovery of
its dues against the persons liable to pay
them.

57. The writ petitions are allowed.
----------
(2020)1ILR 1147

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.11.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Writ C No. 33121 of 2017

Smt. Bedo ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vishnu Sahai, Sri Bhupeshwar Dayal

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A.
The
Urban
Land
(Ceiling
and
Regulation) Act, 1976 - Section 6(1) -
Persons holding vacant land in excess of
ceiling limit to file statement - section
10(1) - Acquisition of vacant land in excess
1148 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of ceiling limit - section 10(3) - notification
- 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 and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 -
section 3 - saving clause - section 4 -
Abatement of legal proceedings - The kind
of possession contemplated u/s 3 & 4 of
the Repeal Act, 1999, is actual possession
and not a mere paper possession and if the
possession of the petitioner's land which
was declared surplus land stood vested in
the State Government u/s 10 (3) of the
principal Act was not taken and no
proceedings u/s 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the
principal Act were pending on the date of
coming into force of the Repeal Act, 1999 -
the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of
the Repeal Act, 1999. (Para 27)

There is a dispute about the fact that the
possession of the surplus land was delivered by
the petitioner to the State Government upon
issuance of notice u/s 10 (5) of the principal
Act - no notice under section 10(5) or section
10(6) of the principal Act was ever issued
before possession of the surplus land of the
disputed plot - the petitioner was still in
possession of the surplus area although the
name of State had been mutated in the
revenue record - moved an application before
the competent authority for deleting the entry
made in favour of the State of Uttar Pradesh
and for restoring her name in the revenue
record claiming the benefit of the Repeal Act,
1999.(Para 4 & 32)

Held:- Actual physical possession of the
petitioner's surplus land was never taken by
the State Government from the petitioner and
the petitioner stood in possession of the
surplus land on the date of the coming into
force of the Repeal Act, 1999 - the respondents
directed to expunge the respondent-State from
the revenue record and to restore that of the
petitioner who is the owner of the land in
dispute. (Para 38 & 40)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-7)

List of cases cited: -

1.
M/s.
A.B.P.
Design
Sonakpur
Versus
Moradabad Development Authority and others,
2018 (8) ADJ 747 (DB)

2. State of U.P. v. Hari Ram, (2013) 4 SCC 280

(Delivered by Hon'ble Bala Krishna
Narayana, J.)

1. Heard Sri Bhupeshwar Dayal,
learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned
Standing
Counsel
for
the
respondent nos. 1 to 3.

2. The instant writ petition has been
filed by the petitioner with the following
prayer to :-

(i) a writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari calling for the
record and to quash the impugned order
dated
18.05.2017
passed
by
the
respondent no. 3 (Annexure No. 3 to the
writ petition);

(ii) a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents not to interfere with the
possession of the petitioner over Plot No.
1346 area 3-19-13 situate in village-
Maliyana, Pargana, Tehsil and District-
Meerut;

(iii) a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents to delete the name of the
respondent State from the revenue record
and to mutate the name of the petitioner
who is owner of the land in dispute;

(iv) any other writ, order or
direction which this Hon'ble Court deems
fit
and
proper
in
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case;

(v) award cost of writ petition to
the petitioner throughout.
1 All. Smt. Bedo Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1149

3. The facts of this case are as
hereunder :-

4. The petitioner claims herself to be
the owner of Plot No. 1346 area 3-19-13
situate in village- Maliyana, Pargana,
Tehsil,
District-
Meerut,
hereinafter
referred
to
as
the
'disputed
plot'.
Proceedings under The Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976,
hereinafter referred to as the 'principal
Act', were initiated against the petitioner
on the basis of the return submitted by her
u/s 6 (1) of the principal Act, whereupon
8656.53 sq. m. of her land was declared
surplus
vide
ex-parte
order
dated
27.06.1979 passed by the respondent no. 3.
The order dated 27.06.1979 was assailed
by the petitioner by filing an appeal before
the District Judge, Meerut which was
registered as Appeal No. 73/1984 and
allowed by him by judgement and order
dated 05.01.1988. In the interregnum
pursuant to the ex-parte order dated
27.06.1979 passed by the respondent no. 3,
notifications u/s 10 (1) and 10 (3) of the
principal Act were issued which were
followed by a notice issued u/s 10 (5) of
the principal Act requiring the petitioner to
deliver possession of the land declared
surplus. The petitioner claims that no
notice was served on her u/s 10 (6) of the
principal Act as the possession was
resisted by her and hence, the same could
not have been taken without serving of
notice u/s 10 (6) of the principal Act on
her and the petitioner continued to remain
in actual physical possession of the surplus
land of the disputed plot despite the
passing of the ex-parte order dated
27.06.1979 till the same was set-aside by
the order dated 05.01.1988 passed by the
appellate court. The appellate court by its
order dated 05.01.1988 after setting aside
the ex-parte order dated 27.06.1979 of the
respondent no. 3, remanded the matter
back to the respondent no. 3 who after
remand, again declared an area of 8656.53
sq. m. of disputed plot as surplus by his
order dated 30.01.1992. Against the order
dated 30.01.1992, the petitioner filed an
Appeal No. 9 of 1992 before the District
Judge, Meerut. However, the said appeal
stood abated by order dated 14.12.1999
passed by the appellate court upon coming
into force of The Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, hereinafter
referred to as the 'Repeal Act, 1999'. Since
the petitioner was still in possession of the
surplus area although the name of State
had been mutated in the revenue record,
she moved an application before the
respondent no. 3 for deleting the entry
made in favour of the State of Uttar
Pradesh and for restoring her name in the
revenue record claiming the benefit of the
Repeal Act, 1999. Copy of the aforesaid
application has been brought on record as
Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition.
However, when no order was passed on
the petitioner's aforesaid application, she
filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
18199/2011 which was finally disposed of
by another coordinate Bench of this Court
by order dated 22.02.2017 which has been
reproduced hereinbelow :-

Learned Standing Counsel states
that he has filed counter affidavit on
13.9.2013, that is not on the record. Sri
Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for
the petitioner states that he has filed
rejoinder affidavit in the year 2015 itself,
that is also not on the record.

Both the counsel have provided
true copy of the counter affidavit and
rejoinder affidavit,which are taken on
record.

We have heard Sri Ashish
Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the
1150 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel
for the State respondents.

By means of this writ petition,
following prayer has been made :-

(A) To issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents-authorities
mainly respondent no. 3 to mutate the
petitioner's name over Plot No. 1346 area
3 bighas 19 biswas 13 biswansis, village
Maliyana Pargana Tehsil and District
Meerut.

(B) To issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents-authorities
mainly respondent no. 3 to dispose of the
petitioner's application for mutation of her
name over the land in question pursuant to
Urban Land Ceiling Repeal Act, 1999.

(C) To issue any other writ order
or direction which this Hon'ble Court may
deem
fit
and
proper
under
the
circumstances of the case.

(D) Award cost of the writ
petition in favour of the petitioner.

Considering
the
petitioner's
prayer, this Court, on 29.3.2011, has
granted time to the learned standing
counsel to file counter affidavit. Again on
10.5.2013, learned standing counsel was
granted one month and no more time to
file counter affidavit. Pursuant thereto,
counter affidavit has been filed.

In paragraph 6 of the counter
affidavit, following averments have been made :-

6.
That
the
contents
of
paragraph 3 of the writ petition are not
admitted and in reply it is submitted that
an appropriate reply of the petitioner's
representation
dated
20.3.2011
for
mutating her name over khasra No. 1346
by deleting the name of the petitioner, has
already been sent to the petitioner by
office letter dated 18.4.2011.

The reply of paragraph 6 of the
counter affidavit has been given in
paragraph 5 of the rejoinder affidavit,
which is reproduced herein under :-

5. That the averments made in
para 6 of the counter affidavit are not
admitted, as stated, hence denied. In reply,
it is submitted that till date petitioner has
not received any reply vide alleged office
letter dated 18.4.2011. The alleged letter
dated 18.4.2011 has never been served
upon the petitioner prior to filing of the
present writ petition which was filed in the
month of March, 2011. The Respondent
Authority for the reasons best known has
not filed the office letter dated 18.4.2011
which according to petition is nothing but
an eye wash. It has also come to know that
in the aforesaid letter, it has been asserted
that the application would be disposed of
only after disposal of the present writ
petition.

From the perusal of para 6 of
the counter affidavit and para 5 of the
rejoinder affidavit, it appears that the
stand taken by the learned Standing
Counsel, that an order for mutating the
petitioner's name has already been passed,
has been denied by the petitioner.

Considering the same, it is
directed that the petitioner may file an
application along with certified copy of
this order before the respondent no. 3
demanding the copy of the order passed on
the mutation application. In case, such an
application is filed, copy of the order be
provided to the petitioner within a period
of two weeks from the date of filing of the
application.

In case, the order has yet not
been passed, the same shall be passed on
the petitioner's application within a period
of ten weeks after hearing all concerned.

It may be clarified that we have
not addressed ourselves on the merit of the
1 All. Smt. Bedo Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1151
matter and it is in the sole domain of the
respondent no. 3 to do the needful in
accordance with law.

5. Thereafter, it appears that the
respondent no. 3 by the impugned order
dated 18.05.2017 rejected the petitioner's
application
holding
that
since
the
Tehsildar- Meerut had obtained possession
of the area of 8656.53 sq. m. of petitioner's
plot which was declared surplus on
19.07.1981 and handed over its possession
to the State Government, much before
coming into force of the Repeal Act, 1999,
the petitioner was not entitled to any
benefit of the Repeal Act, 1999.

6. In paragraphs 18 and 20 of the
counter affidavit which has been filed on
behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 in
this writ petition, it has been contended
that possession of the surplus land was
taken and was handed over to the State
Government on 29.07.1981, and hence,
there was no requirement of issuing any
notice further u/s 10 (6) of the principal
Act. In paragraph 4, it was stated that the
possession of the petitioner's land which
was declared surplus by the order dated
27.06.1979 passed by the respondent no. 3
was taken on 29.07.1981 after giving due
notice to the petitioner on 30.05.1981 u/s
10 (5) of the principal Act which was
preceded by following the provisions of
Section 9, 10 (1) and 10 (3) of the
principal Act. Copies of notice dated
30.05.1981 and possession memo dated
29.07.1981 have been brought on record as
Annexure Nos. C.A.-1 & 2 respectively to
the counter affidavit filed in the writ
petition.

7. That reply to the paragraph nos. 18
and 20 of the counter affidavit has been
given by the learned counsel for the
petitioner in paragraph 14 of the rejoinder
affidavit filed in this writ petition. In the
said paragraph, apart from denying the
allegations made in paragraph nos. 16 to
21 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf
of the respondent nos. 2 and 3, it has been
stated that proceedings u/s 9, 10 (1) and 10
(3) of the principal Act stood set-aside by
the judgement and order dated 05.01.1988
passed by the District Judge, Meerut and
the matter was remanded back for decision
afresh and no possession was ever
delivered to the ceiling authorities and
since no proceedings for taking possession
after passing of the aforesaid order after
remand was initiated by the ceiling
authorities, there is no question of
possession of the surplus land having ever
been taken by the ceiling authorities. It
was also stated that even where ex-parte
proceedings are taken, issuance of notice
u/s 10 (6) of the principal Act is required
and since the prescribed procedure was not
followed, the possession memo, copy
whereof has been brought on record as
Annexure No. C.A.-2 to the counter
affidavit filed in the writ petition, was a
paper transaction.

8. The petitioner in paragraph 4 of
the rejoinder affidavit, apart from denying
the allegations made in paragraph 4 of the
counter affidavit further stated that the exparte order dated 27.06.1979 passed u/s 8
(4) of the principal Act and the subsequent
proceedings taken in pursuance thereof
were wholly illegal and the order dated
27.06.1979 was set-aside by the appellate
court by allowing the appeal filed by the
petitioner against the ex-parte order and
the matter was remanded back for deciding
the case afresh. It was further stated in the
same paragraph that the possession memo
dated 30.05.1981 was a mere paper
transaction as no possession was delivered
1152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by the petitioner and further no notice u/s
10 (6) of the principal Act was ever issued
to her.

9. In paragraph 5 of the counter
affidavit, it has further been observed that
after the appeal preferred by the petitioner
against the judgement and order dated
27.06.1979 of the respondent no. 3 was
allowed by the District Judge, Meerut, the
matter
was
remanded
back
to
the
respondent no. 3 who by his order dated
30.01.1992 again declared an area of
8656.53 sq. m. of the disputed plot as
surplus.
Copy
of
the
order
dated
30.01.1992 has been brought on record as
Annexure No. C.A.-4 to the counter
affidavit filed in the writ petition.

10. Sri Bhupeshwar Dayal, learned
counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the finding recorded by the respondent
no. 3 in the impugned order dated
27.06.1979 that the possession of the
surplus area of the disputed plot stood with
the State Government on the date of the
coming into force of the Repeal Act, 1999,
is per se illegal and not warranted by any
material on record. He next submitted that
even if it is assumed for the sake of
arguments that the possession of the
surplus land of the petitioner was taken by
Tehsildar- Meerut on 29.07.1981 and
delivered to the State Government after the
passing of the ex-parte order dated
27.06.1979 by the respondent no. 3, even
then the so-called possession memo dated
29.07.1981 does not indicate that the
possession was taken by the Tehsilder-
Meerut from the petitioner. There being
absolutely no material on record even
prima facie indicating that when after the
passing of the order dated 30.01.1992 by
the respondent no. 3 after remand by
which again an area of 8656.53 sq. m. of
the disputed plot was declared surplus, any
proceedings u/s 10 (1), 10 (3), 10 (5) and
10 (6) of the principal Act were taken by
the ceiling authorities as after the settingaside of the order of the respondent no. 3
dated 27.06.1979 on appeal preferred by
the petitioner, all subsequent proceedings
taken pursuant thereto became a nullity
because the legal consequence which
followed was that there existed no order
declaring any land of the petitioner surplus
and land continued to remain in possession
of the petitioner. He next contended that
there being no material on record that any
fresh proceedings u/s 10 (1), 10 (3), 10 (5)
and 10 (6) of the principal Act were taken
by the respondent no. 3 after the passing of
the order dated 30.01.1992 by the
respondent no. 3 on remand, it could not
be held that the State Government was in
possession of the surplus land on the date
of the coming into force of the Repeal Act,
1999 and hence, the petitioner was not
entitled to any benefit thereof, the view
taken to the contrary by the respondent no.
3 in the impugned order dated 18.05.2017,
cannot be sustained and the impugned
order is liable to be set-aside.

11. Per contra learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the respondent nos.
1 to 3 supported the impugned order by
relying upon the proceedings which were
taken u/s 10 (1), 10 (3) and 10 (5) of the
principal Act which were taken pursuant to
the order passed by the respondent no. 3 on
27.06.1979 u/s 8 (4) of the principal Act and
the possession memo dated 29.07.1981
submitted that it is an admitted factual
position that after the order dated 27.06.1979
was set-aside on appeal preferred by the
petitioner, the petitioner had not moved any
application before the ceiling authorities for
restoration of possession of the surplus land
to her which was taken from her by the
1 All. Smt. Bedo Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1153
Tehsildar- Meerut and handed over to the
State Government on 29.07.1981. He next
submitted that argument advanced by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that once
the order dated 27.06.1979 was set-aside, the
entire proceedings taken pursuant thereto
become a nullity and the petitioner
continued to remain in possession of the
surplus land despite her having not taken any
steps for restitution of the possession, is not
only misconceived but also preposterous.
The respondent no. 3 did not commit any
illegality or legal infirmity in denying to the
petitioner the benefit of the Repeal Act,
1999. This writ petition which lacks merit is
liable to be dismissed.

12. We have heard learned counsel
for the parties and perused the pleadings as
well as the original record which was
produced before us by the learned
Standing Counsel.

13. The twin questions which arise
for our consideration in this writ petition
inter-alia are that whether on the date of
the coming into force of the Repeal Act,
1999, actual physical possession of the
disputed land was with the petitioner or
the same stood delivered to the State and;
whether the petitioner is entitled to the
benefit of the Repeal Act ?

14. In order to examine the aforesaid
questions, it would be useful to reproduce
the provisions of The Urban Land (Ceiling
and Regulation) Act, 1976 and The Urban
Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act,
1999 which are relevant for our purpose :-

6. Persons holding vacant land in
excess of ceiling limit to file statement-

(1) Every person holding vacant
land in excess of the ceiling limit at the
commencement of this Act shall, within
such period as may be prescribed, file a
statement before the competent authority
having Jurisdiction specifying the location,
extent, value and such other particulars as
may be prescribed of all vacant land and of
any other land on which there is a
building, whether or not with a dwelling
unit therein, held by him (including the
nature of his right, title or interest therein)
and also specifying the vacant land within
the ceiling limit which he desires to retain:
Provided that in relation to any State to
which this Act applies in the first instance,
the provisions of this sub-section shall
have effect as if for the words "Every
person holding vacant land in excess of the
ceiling limit and the commencement of
this Act", the words, figures and letters
"Every person who held vacant land in
excess of the ceiling limit on or after the
17th day of February, 1975 and before the
commencement of this Act and every
person holding vacant land in excess of the
ceiling limit at such commencement" had
been substituted. Explanation.--In this
section, "commencement of this Act"
means,--

(i) the date on which this Act
comes into force in any State;

(ii) where any land, not being
vacant land, situated in a State in which
this Act is in force has become vacant land
by any reason whatsoever, the date on
which such land becomes vacant land;

(iii) where any notification has
been issued under clause (n) of section 2 in
respect of any area in a State in which this
Act is in force, the date of publication of
such notification.

(2) If the competent authority is
of opinion that--

(a) in any State to which this Act
applies in the first instance, any person
held on or after the 17th day of February,
1975 and before the commencement of
1154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
this Act or holds at such commencement;
or

(b) in any State which adopts
this Act under clause (1) of article 252 of
the Constitution, any person holds at the
commencement of this Act, vacant land in
excess
of
the
ceiling
limit,
then,
notwithstanding anything contained in
sub-section (1), it may serve a notice upon
such person requiring him to file, within
such period as may be specified in the
notice, the statement referred to in subsection (1).

(3) The competent authority
may, if it is satisfied that it is necessary so
to do, extend the date for filing the
statement under this section by such
further period or periods as it may think
fit; so, however, that the period or the
aggregate of the periods of such extension
shall not exceed three months.

(4) The statement under this
section shall be filed,--

(a) in the case of an individual,
by the individual himself; where the
individual is absent from India, by the
individual concerned or by some person
duly authorised by him in this behalf; and
where
the
individual
is
mentally
incapacitated from attending to his affairs,
by his guardian or any other person
competent to act on his behalf;

(b) in the case of a family, by the
husband or wife and where the husband or
wife is absent from India or is mentally
incapacitated from attending to his or her
affairs, by the husband or wife who is not
so absent or mentally incapacitated and
where both the husband and the wife are
absent from India or are mentally
incapacitated from attending to their
affairs, by any other person competent to
act on behalf on the husband or wife or
both;

(c) in the case of a company, by
the principal officer thereof;

(d) in the case of a firm, by any
partner thereof;

(e) in the case of any other
association, by any member of the
association or the principal officer thereof;
and

(f) in the case of any other
person, by that person or by a person
competent
to
act
on
his
behalf.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this subsection, "principal officer"--

(i) in relation to a company,
means
the
secretary,
manager
or
managing- director of the company;

(ii) in relation to any association,
means the secretary, treasurer, manager or
agent of the association, and includes any
person connected with the management of
the affairs of the company or the
association, as the case may be, upon
whom the competent authority has served
a notice of his intention of treating his as
the principal officer thereof.

7. Filing of statement in cases
where vacant land held by a person is
situated within the jurisdiction of two or
more competent authorities.--

(1) Where a person holds vacant
land situated within the jurisdiction of two
or more competent authorities, whether in
the same State or in two or more States to
which this Act applies, then, he shall file
his statement under sub-section (1) of
section 6 before the competent authority
within the jurisdiction of which the major
part thereof is situated and thereafter all
subsequent proceedings shall be taken
before that competent authority to the
exclusion of the other competent authority
or authorities concerned and the competent
authority, before which the statement is
filed, shall send intimation thereof to the
1 All. Smt. Bedo Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1155
other competent authority or authorities
concerned.

(2) Where the extent of vacant
land held by any person and situated
within the jurisdiction of two or more
competent authorities within the same
State to which this Act applies is equal, he
shall file his statement under sub-section
(1) of section 6 before any one of the
competent authorities and send intimation
thereof in such form as may be prescribed
to the State Government and thereupon,
the State Government shall, by order,
determine the competent authority before
which all subsequent proceedings under
this Act shall be taken to the exclusion of
the
other
competent
authority
or
authorities and communicate that order to
such person and the competent authorities
concerned.

(3) Where the extent of vacant
land held by any person and situated
within the jurisdiction of two or more
competent authorities in two or more
States to which this Act applies is equal,
he shall file his statement under subsection (1) of section 6 before any one of
the
competent
authorities
and
send
intimation thereof in such form as may be
prescribed to the Central Government and
thereupon, the Central Government shall,
by
order,
determine
the
competent
authority before which all subsequent
proceedings shall betaken to the exclusion
of the other competent authority or
authorities and communicate that order to
such person, the State Governments and
the competent authorities concerned.

8. Preparation of draft statement
as regards vacant land held in excess of
ceiling limit-

(1) On the basis of the statement
filed under section 6 and after such inquiry
as the competent authority may deem fit to
make
the
competent
authority
shall
prepare a draft statement in respect of the
person who has filed the statement under
section 6.

(2) Every statement prepared
under sub-section (1) shall contain the
following particulars, namely:--

(i) the name and address of the
person;

(ii) the particulars of all vacant
land and of any other land on which there
is a building, whether or not with a
dwelling unit therein, held by such person;

(iii) the particulars of the vacant
lands which such person desires to retain
within the ceiling limit;

(iv) the particulars of the right,
title or interest of the person in the vacant
land; and

(v) such other particulars as may
be prescribed.

(3) The draft statement shall be
served in such manner as may be
prescribed on the person concerned
together with a notice stating that any
objection to the draft statement shall be
preferred within thirty days of the service
thereof.

(4) The competent authority
shall duly consider any objection received,
within the period specified in the notice
referred to in sub-section (3) or within
such further period as may be specified by
the competent authority for any good and
sufficient reason, from the person whom a
copy of the draft statement has been
served under that sub-section and the
competent authority shall, after giving the
objector a reasonable opportunity of being
heard, pass such orders as it deems fit.

9. Final Statement.--After the
disposal of the objections, if any, received
under sub-section (4) of section 8, the
competent
authority
shall
make
the
necessary alterations in the draft statement
in accordance with the orders passed on
1156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the
objections
aforesaid
and
shall
determine the vacant land held by the
person concerned in excess of the ceiling
limit and cause a copy of the draft
statement as so altered to be served in the
manner referred to in sub-section (3) of
section 8 on the person concerned and
where such vacant land is held under a
lease, or a mortgage, or a hire-purchase
agreement, or an irrevocable power of
attorney, also on the owner of such vacant
land.

10. Acquisition of vacant land in
excess of ceiling limit-

(1) As soon as may be after the
service of the statement under section 9 on
the person concerned, the competent
authority shall cause a notification giving
the particulars of the vacant land held by
such person in excess of the ceiling limit
and stating that--

(i) such vacant land is to be
acquired
by
the
concerned
State
Government; and

(ii) the claims of all person
interested in such vacant land may be
made by them personally or by their
agents giving particulars of the nature of
their interests in such land, to be published
for the information of the general public in
the Official Gazette of the State concerned
and in such other manner as may be
prescribed.

(2) After considering the claims
of the persons interested in the vacant
land, made to the competent authority in
pursuance of the notification published
under sub-section (1), the competent
authority shall determine the nature and
extent of such claims and pass such orders
as it deems fit.

(3) At any time after the
publication of the notification under subsection (1) the competent authority may,
by notification published in the Official
Gazette of the State concerned, declare
that the excess vacant land referred to in
the notification published under subsection (1) shall, with effect from such
date as may be specified in the declaration,
be deemed to have been acquired by the
State
Government
and
upon
the
publication of such declaration, such land
shall be deemed to have vested absolutely
in the State Government free from all
encumbrances with effect from the date so
specified.

(4)
During
the
period
commencing on the date of publication of
the notification under sub-section (1) and
ending with the date specified in the
declaration made under sub-section (3)--

(i) no person shall transfer by
way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or
otherwise
any
excess
vacant
land
(including any part thereof) specified in
the notification aforesaid and any such
transfer made in contravention of this
provision shall be deemed to be null and
void; and

(ii) no person shall alter or cause
to be altered the use of such excess vacant
land.

(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
authorized by the State Government in this
behalf within thirty days of the service of
the notice.

(6) If any person refuses or fails
to comply with an order made under subsection (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
1 All. Smt. Bedo Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1157
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 subsection (1) of section 11 and in sections 14
and 23, "State Government", in relation to-
-

(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.

15. Section 3 and 4 of the Repeal
Act, 1999 are as hereunder :-

3. Saving.--

(1) The repeal of the principal
Act shall not affect--

(a) the vesting of any vacant land
under sub-section (3) of Section 10,
possession of which has been taken over
the State Government or any person duly
authorised 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 authorised 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
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.

16. Upon perusal of the aforesaid
provisions of
the
principal
Act,
it
transpires that Section 6 provides that
every person holding vacant land in excess
of the ceiling limit was required to file a
statement before the competent authority
having jurisdiction specifying the location,
extent, value and such other prescribed
particulars of the vacant land and of any
other land on which there was a building,
whether or not with a dwelling unit
therein, held by him.

17. Section 7 provides the procedure
for filing of statement in cases where
vacant land held by a person was situated
within the jurisdiction of two or more
competent authorities.

18. Section 8 provides that on the
basis of the statement filed u/s 6 and after
1158 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
such inquiry as the competent authority
may deem fit to make, the competent
authority shall prepare the draft statement.

19. Section 8 (3) stipulates that the
draft statement prepared u/s 8 shall be
served on the person concerned together
with a notice stating that any objection to
the draft statement shall be prepared
within 30 days of the service thereof.

20. Section 9 provides that after
disposal of the objections, if any, received
under sub-section (4) of Section 8, the
competent authority shall prepare the final
statement.

21. Section 10 (1) provides that after
the service of the statement u/s 9 on the
person concerned, the competent authority
shall cause a notification giving the
particulars of the vacant land held by such
person in excess of the ceiling limit to be
published in the Official Gazette of the
State concerned for the information of the
general public.

22. Section 10 (2) empowers the
competent authority to decide the claims
of the persons interested in the vacant land
filed in pursuance of the notification
published under sub-section (1).

23. Section 10 (3) provides that the
competent authority concerned may, by
notification published in the Official
Gazette of the State concerned, anytime
after the publication of the notification
under sub-section (1) declare that excess
vacant land referred to in the notification
published under sub-section (1) with effect
from such date as may be specified in the
declaration, be deemed to be have been
acquired by the State Government. Such
land shall be deemed to have vested
absolutely in the State Government free
from all encumbrances.

24. Section 10 (4) prohibits transfer
by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or
otherwise by any person any excess vacant
land (including any part thereof) specified
in the notification aforesaid and any such
transfer made in contravention of this
provision shall be deemed to be null and
void and no person shall alter or cause to
be altered the use of such excess vacant
land.

25. Section 10 (5) empowers the
competent authority to order any person by
notice in writing who is in possession of
any vacant land vested in the State
Government under sub-section (3) to
surrender or deliver possession thereof to
State Government or to any person duly
authorized by the State Government in this
behalf within thirty days of the service of
the notice.

26. Section 10 (6) states where 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 authorized by such State Government in this
behalf and may for that purpose use such force as
may be necessary.

27.