# Dalsukhbhai Bachubhai Satasia & Others v. State of Gujarat & Others

- **Citation:** 2026 INSC 21
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2026-01-06
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 6130 of 2016
- **Bench:** B.V. Nagarathna, R. Mahadevan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/dalsukhbhai-bachubhai-satasia-others-v-state-of-gujarat-others-39064
- **Pages:** 40

## Headnote

Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in dismissing
the writ petitions by not applying s.4 of the Repealing Act and
thereby not granting relief to the appellants; was the delivery of
notice u/s.10(5) of the ULC Act to the appellants (as possessors
of the concerned lands) a mandatory step, the non-fulfilment of
which would render abatement of the proceedings in terms of s.4
of the Repealing Act; and that despite the recording of lands in
the name of the State Government, if actual possession was not
subsequently transferred to the Government, would this render
the proceedings to abate u/s.4 of the Repealing Act.
Headnotes†
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - ss.6(1), 10(5),
10(6), 21 - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act,
1999 - ss.3, 4 - Acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling
limit - Requirement of issuance of notice to possessors - Land
admeasuring 9303 square metres belonged to the heir as its
true owner and occupier - Order by the competent authority
that the land in question was exempt u/s.21 and the remaining
land was within the ceiling limit and was not excess land - In
a public auction, land was purchased by a Society and issued
possession receipts to multiple sub-plot holders including the
appellant - Assistant Collector cancelled the mutation entry,
thereafter, the order was challenged before various forums
and finally the Competent Authority passed an order declaring
662.18 sq. metres as excess land - On the cancellation of
the auction purchase, the original landowner, entered into a
registered agreements of sale for the sub-plots in favour of
* Author
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
333
Dalsukhbhai Bachubhai Satasia & Others v. State of Gujarat & Others
the sub-plot holders/appellants, and the appellants became
owners and came into possession of sub-plots - Notice
u/s.10(5) issued only to original landholder directing him to
vacate and handover possession of the "excess land" to the
respondent-State - Since possession was not surrendered,
the Deputy Collector directed taking over of possession of
the excess land - Sub-plot holders tried to resell their subplots, the Competent Authority refused to grant NOCs - Writ
petitions by the appellants before High Court dismissed as
also appeals thereagainst - Correctness:
Held: Requirement of issuance of notice u/s.10(5) is mandatory
and must be issued to the persons actually in possession of the
concerned land - This is clear from the wording of the statuteorder any person who may be in possession of it - Importance
of delivering notice lay in avoiding a situation where a person is
"dispossessed" without notice which would be in violation of the
principles of natural justice, thereby clearly envisioning that the
possessor must be served with notice - As per the provisions of
s.10(3) and 10(5), the subject land, despite having 'vested' in the
State Government, was not in the possession of the Government -
Possesion of the land continued with the appellant - Proviso to
s.4 not applicable and the benefit of abatement under the section
would apply - Legislative intent is that in cases where lands
were deemed to have been vested but possession was not yet
transferred as on date of enforcement of the Repealing Act, the
lands were to remain in possession of the private parties - Vesting
and possession are distinct and that without the latter, the private
parties have a claim over continuing to be in possession - On
the date of issuance of notice, the appellants as possessors did
not receive the notice - It was sent to the erstwhile owner of the
subject land - This also implies that the respondents also were
aware of the fact that actual possession was not with them and
there was a need to issue notice u/s.10(5) before taking over actual
possession - However, the respondents did not ascertain as to in
whose name actual possession stood - Thus, no notice was issued
to the appellants and hence there being no transfer of possession
in accordance with s.10, i

## Text

_Characters 0–39,653 of 80,260. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39653 for what follows._

[2026] 1 S.C.R. 332 : 2026 INSC 21
Dalsukhbhai Bachubhai Satasia & Others
v.
State of Gujarat & Others
(Civil Appeal No. 6130 of 2016)
06 January 2026
[B.V. Nagarathna* and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in dismissing
the writ petitions by not applying s.4 of the Repealing Act and
thereby not granting relief to the appellants; was the delivery of
notice u/s.10(5) of the ULC Act to the appellants (as possessors
of the concerned lands) a mandatory step, the non-fulfilment of
which would render abatement of the proceedings in terms of s.4
of the Repealing Act; and that despite the recording of lands in
the name of the State Government, if actual possession was not
subsequently transferred to the Government, would this render
the proceedings to abate u/s.4 of the Repealing Act.
Headnotes†
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - ss.6(1), 10(5),
10(6), 21 - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act,
1999 - ss.3, 4 - Acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling
limit - Requirement of issuance of notice to possessors - Land
admeasuring 9303 square metres belonged to the heir as its
true owner and occupier - Order by the competent authority
that the land in question was exempt u/s.21 and the remaining
land was within the ceiling limit and was not excess land - In
a public auction, land was purchased by a Society and issued
possession receipts to multiple sub-plot holders including the
appellant - Assistant Collector cancelled the mutation entry,
thereafter, the order was challenged before various forums
and finally the Competent Authority passed an order declaring
662.18 sq. metres as excess land - On the cancellation of
the auction purchase, the original landowner, entered into a
registered agreements of sale for the sub-plots in favour of
* Author
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
333
Dalsukhbhai Bachubhai Satasia & Others v. State of Gujarat & Others
the sub-plot holders/appellants, and the appellants became
owners and came into possession of sub-plots - Notice
u/s.10(5) issued only to original landholder directing him to
vacate and handover possession of the "excess land" to the
respondent-State - Since possession was not surrendered,
the Deputy Collector directed taking over of possession of
the excess land - Sub-plot holders tried to resell their subplots, the Competent Authority refused to grant NOCs - Writ
petitions by the appellants before High Court dismissed as
also appeals thereagainst - Correctness:
Held: Requirement of issuance of notice u/s.10(5) is mandatory
and must be issued to the persons actually in possession of the
concerned land - This is clear from the wording of the statuteorder any person who may be in possession of it - Importance
of delivering notice lay in avoiding a situation where a person is
"dispossessed" without notice which would be in violation of the
principles of natural justice, thereby clearly envisioning that the
possessor must be served with notice - As per the provisions of
s.10(3) and 10(5), the subject land, despite having 'vested' in the
State Government, was not in the possession of the Government -
Possesion of the land continued with the appellant - Proviso to
s.4 not applicable and the benefit of abatement under the section
would apply - Legislative intent is that in cases where lands
were deemed to have been vested but possession was not yet
transferred as on date of enforcement of the Repealing Act, the
lands were to remain in possession of the private parties - Vesting
and possession are distinct and that without the latter, the private
parties have a claim over continuing to be in possession - On
the date of issuance of notice, the appellants as possessors did
not receive the notice - It was sent to the erstwhile owner of the
subject land - This also implies that the respondents also were
aware of the fact that actual possession was not with them and
there was a need to issue notice u/s.10(5) before taking over actual
possession - However, the respondents did not ascertain as to in
whose name actual possession stood - Thus, no notice was issued
to the appellants and hence there being no transfer of possession
in accordance with s.10, it continues with the appellants both in
fact as well as in law - Hence, entitled to the benefit of s.4 of the
Repealing Act as they do not fall within the scope of s.3 of the said
Act which is the savings clause - Omission to issue notice to the
334
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
appellants violated the mandatory requirement of serving notice
u/s.10(5) and meant that the legal process of acquiring possession
was still ongoing, leading to abatement of proceedings u/s.4 of the
Repealing Act on its enforcement - Abatement of proceedings is
by operation of law based on the facts of each case and once the
proceedings u/s.10 abate, the consequential reliefs would have to
be granted to the appellants - Hence, the appellants entitled to all
consequential reliefs pursuant to the abatement of the proceedings
u/s.4 of the Repealing Act as the case of the appellants squarely
falls within the scope of the provision - Division Bench of the High
Court not right in holding that the appellants not in possession
of the subject land on the date on which the ULC Act came into
force and were illegal occupants; and that although the electricity
bills showed the name of the appellants, it did not establish their
possession u/s.10(5) - Impugned orders of the High Court set
aside. [Paras 18.1, 18.3, 19.2-19.4, 22 22.1-22.9, 23]
Case Law Cited
C. Albert Morris v. K. Chandrasekaran [2005] Supp. 4 SCR 779 :
(2006) 1 SCC 228; State of Assam v. Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma [2014]
14 SCR 1451 : (2015) 5 SCC 321; Mangalsen v. State of Uttar
Pradesh (2014) 15 SCC 332; Gajanan Kamlya Patil v. Additional
Collector & Competent Authority [2014] 1 SCR 1032 : (2014) 12
SCC 523; State of Orissa v. Sakhi Bewa [2021] 10 SCR 1105 :
(2022) 16 SCC 594 - referred to.
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Hari Ram [2013] 2 SCR 301 : (2013) 4
SCC 280; AP Electrical Equipment Corporation v. Tahsildar [2025]
2 SCR 1625 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 447; U.A. Basheer v. State
of Karnataka [2021] 1 SCR 893 : (2021) 5 SCC 313 - relied on.
List of Acts
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976; Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999; Gujarat Land Revenue
Rules, 1972.
List of Keywords
Excess vacant land; Vesting; Possession; Paper possession; de
jure and de facto possession; Effect of the Repealing Act; Notice;
Abatement of proceedings; Mandatory notice; Natural justice;
Person in possession; Forced dispossession.
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
335
Dalsukhbhai Bachubhai Satasia & Others v. State of Gujarat & Others
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6130 of 2016
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.07.2014 of the High Court
of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in LPA No. 2024 of 2010 and SCA No.
533 of 2009
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
K.K. Trivedi, Rabin Majumder, Krishna Yadav.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Anuj Chaudhary.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Nagarathna, J.
This civil appeal assails the impugned judgment dated 23.07.2014
passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in LPA
No.2024/2010 in Special Civil Application No.533/2009 wherein the
appeal filed by the appellants herein was dismissed.
Factual Backdrop:
2.
The facts of the case are that the land in question is admeasuring
9303 square metres and bearing Survey No. 339 of Town Planning
Scheme No.4, Final Plot Nos.9A and 9B of Village Katargam, Surat,
Gujarat (for short, "Survey 339"). According to the appellants, the
said land belonged to one Nathubhai Ranchhodbhai, upon whose
death in the year 1933, his heir Kuberbhai Nathubhai became its
true owner and occupier.
2.1 On 17.02.1976, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,
1976 ("ULC Act", for the sake of convenience) came into force.
Section 6(1) of the said Act directed every person holding
vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit to file a statement
specifying the location, extent, value and such other particulars
of all vacant lands held by him. Accordingly, on 12.08.1976,
336
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Kuberbhai Nathubhai filed a Form under Section 6(1) of the
ULC Act declaring the following lands of Katargam, Surat under
his holding:
Sl.
No.
Survey No.
Area (square
metre)
Type of Use
1.
470/1 paiki
23168
Agricultural
2.
472 paiki
3035
Agricultural
3.
472 paiki
11331
Agricultural
4.
Residence House No.
1355 in Ward No. 15
111-484
Residential
2.2 Thereafter, on 18.02.1980, the Competent Authority under the
ULC Act (for short, "Competent Authority-I") passed an order
holding that lands bearing Survey Nos. 479 and 472/p were
exempt under Section 21 of the ULC Act, which stated that
excess vacant land shall not be treated as excess in certain
cases. The order also held that the remaining land of Survey
No.339 was within the ceiling limit, so there was "no excess
land" being held by the family members of Kuberbhai Nathubhai.
The respondents contended that the form filled earlier under
Section 6(1) was not processed and was kept pending.
2.3 Thereafter, one Khodidas Kanjibhai Patel, the organiser of
Sardar Hira Udhyog Sahakari Mandali Ltd. (for short, "the
Society") purchased the lands of Survey No.339 at a public
auction held by the Special Recovery Officer on 28.04.1981. By
order dated 28.05.1981, the officer confirmed the auction, and
directed that the name of the Society be entered in the records
of rights. Accordingly, the name of the Society was entered in
the revenue records by Mutation Entry No.7068 on 16.05.1983.
Thereafter, Khodidas Kanjibhai Patel obtained Construction
Permission (for short, "Raja Chitthi") on 13.12.1983 from the
Surat Municipal Corporation for constructing industrial units for
the Society. Khodidas Patel then issued Possession Receipts
(for short, "Kabja Receipts") to multiple sub-plot holders, the
appellants herein, who have remained in possession of the said
sub-plots since the year 1983-84.
2.4 However, on 12.10.1984, the Assistant Collector, Choryasi
Prant, passed an order cancelling Mutation Entry No.7068 dated
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
337
Dalsukhbhai Bachubhai Satasia & Others v. State of Gujarat & Others
16.05.1983, inter alia, on the basis that the public auction dated
28.04.1981 was not conducted according to the provisions of
the ULC Act. This order was challenged before the Collector,
Choryasi Prant in Appeal No.152/1985, which passed an order
dated 16.01.1986 upholding the original order dated 12.10.1984
of the Assistant Collector. The order of the Collector was in turn
challenged before the Assistant Secretary, Revenue Department
in Revision under Rule 108(6A) of the Gujarat Land Revenue
Rules, 1972. By order dated 07.04.1986, said Revision was
dismissed thereby upholding the order dated 16.01.1986 passed
by the Collector in Appeal No.152/1985.
2.5 On 03.05.1988, the Government of Gujarat exercised its powers
of revision under Section 34 of the ULC Act and set aside the
order dated 18.02.1980 passed by the Competent Authority-I,
and remanded the matter to the Competent Authority & Additional
Collector, ULC, Surat (for short, "Competent Authority-II") for
reconsideration of the question of "excess land" with regard to
the subject land Survey No.339. Thereafter, on 16.01.1989, the
Competent Authority-II passed an order declaring that 662.18
square metres out of the total area of 9303 square metres of
the subject land in Survey No.339 - Final Plot Nos. 9A and 9B
was 'excess land'.
2.6 According to the appellants, in the order dated 16.01.1989, the
cancellation of the mutation entry was specifically mentioned.
However, they were not served with any notice by the Competent
Authority-II, though they were the unit holders (sub-plot holders),
and were in actual physical and legal possession of the said
units. Furthermore, none of them was made a party before the
Competent Authority-II, despite being in possession.
2.7 Therefore, on the cancellation of the auction purchase in favour
of Khodidas Kanjibhai Patel the original landowner, Kuberbhai
Nathubhai, entered into a registered agreements of sale for the
sub-plots in favour of the sub-plot holders/appellants herein,
and hence the appellants became owners and came into
possession of sub-plot Nos.1 to 77 situated upon Survey No.339.
According to the appellants, majority of them are engaged in
the business of diamond cutting and polishing, while a few of
them are engaged in different businesses, such as embroidery
and other small businesses.
338
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
2.8
On 22.11.1990, a notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC
Act was issued to the original landholder directing him to
vacate and handover possession of the "excess land" to the
respondent/State Government within a period of thirty days.
Since possession was not surrendered, the Deputy Collector,
ULC drew Panchnama dated 21.01.1992, directing taking
over possession of the 'excess land' to the tune of 662.18
square metres out of the total area of the land admeasuring
9303 square metres. In the said order, it was also observed
that the said excess land is "open on the site" and that the
possession of the same has been taken by the Competent
Authority and Deputy Collector, ULC.
2.9
When some of the sub-plot holders tried to resell their subplots, the Competent Authority-II sent letters dated 20.06.2007
and 05.07.2008 refusing to grant 'No Objection Certificates'
(for short, "NOCs") for the subsequent sale, on the ground that
the constructed units were situated over the alleged 'excess
land' as the said surplus land was taken over and therefore
vested in the government since 21.01,1992. The appellants
contended that this was the first time it came to their knowledge
that the said property had been declared as 'excess land' by
the Competent Authority-II.
2.10 Aggrieved, the appellants preferred Writ Petition being Special
Civil Application No.533/2009 before the Gujarat High Court,
seeking relief in the nature of directions to the respondent to
issue the necessary NOCs for subsequent sale of the said
sub-plots. Thereafter another Writ Petition being Special Civil
Application No.10844/2010 was preferred by the appellants
before the Gujarat High Court, seeking relief in the nature
of a declaration to the effect that no 'Non-Agricultural Use
Permission' was required for the usage of the said allotted
sub-plots. Both the said Writ Petitions were dismissed vide
separate orders dated 08.02.2010 by the Gujarat High Court.
2.11 Aggrieved by the dismissal of the said Writ Petitions, the
appellants preferred Letters Patent Appeals bearing LPA
Nos.2024/2010 and 1171/2011 before the Gujarat High
Court. The said Letters Patent Appeals were dismissed vide
impugned common order dated 23.07.2014. The Gujarat
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
339
Dalsukhbhai Bachubhai Satasia & Others v. State of Gujarat & Others
High Court, while dismissing the said Letter Patent Appeals,
observed that the appellants herein are 'illegal occupants' of
the said sub-plots and had the knowledge and notice of the
proceedings under the ULC Act as it is apparent from the
perusal of the sale deeds and 'Raja Chitthi' that said transfers
were made subject to the proceedings and provisions of the
ULC Act. It was further observed by the High Court that the
order of permission granted was in favour of the Society and
not in favour of the appellants. It was observed that the fact
that electricity connections and subsequent bills raised were
in the name of the appellants but the same do not establish
their possession as emphasised under Section 10(5) of the
ULC Act. Lastly, the High Court also observed that none of
the appellants were in possession of the said pieces of land
on the date on which the ULC Act came into force.
2.12 Aggrieved by the impugned common order dated 23.07.2014
passed in LPA No.2024/2010 in Special Civil Application
No.533/2009 and LPA No.1171/2011 in Special Civil Application
No.10844/2010, the appellants have preferred the present
Civil Appeal. The appellants submitted that they have only
challenged one order and hence the declaration of 'excess
vacant land' is the only hurdle preventing the issuance of
NOC's. Therefore, if they were to succeed in the present appeal,
the other reliefs sought for, and grievances of the appellants,
including the relief sought for in LPA No.1171/2011, can be
redressed by the respondents themselves.
Submissions:
3.
We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused
the materials on record.
3.1 Learned counsel for the appellants submitted as follows:
3.1.1 As per the wording of Section 10(5) of the ULC Act,
the intention of the legislation is clear inasmuch as the
persons who are in possession of the land are required
to be served with notice and not merely the persons
who had filled the declaration form under Section 6(1)
of the ULC Act. Therefore, the High Court misinterpreted
the provisions of Section 10(5) of the ULC Act. Had the
340
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
appellants, as possessors of the concerned plots been
served notice, they would have been in a position to take
appropriate action against the orders of the Competent
Authority-II, as well as the original landowners. Neither
Benches of the High Court disagreed with the fact that
the physical and actual possession of the sub-plots in
question were with the appellants. Rather, while the
learned Single Judge did not consider the question of
possession, the Division Bench held that possession
of the sub-plots by the appellants was illegal under the
provisions of the ULC Act.
3.1.2 That the above finding is contrary to law. This is because
when the Society allotted the sub-plots to its members,
including the appellants herein, in the year 1983-84,
there was no declaration regarding 'excess vacant
land'. No notice was ever served to the appellants about
such a declaration, despite them possessing the subplots, putting up construction upon them and running
small factories/diamond factories/industrial units. The
appellants had adduced electricity bills in their name to
prove possession. However, the High Court held that
the electricity bills do not establish possession.
3.1.3 Further, the High Court erred in holding that the appellants
were in illegal occupants. The original landowners,
who had executed the sale deeds, did not mention
the declaration of 'excess vacant land'. Moreover, the
Competent Authority-II only took 'paper possession' of
the sub-plots, and did not take over actual, physical
and legal possession, which has always remained with
the appellants. No notice was served on the appellants
and therefore the possession of 'excess vacant land'
was not taken over legally by, for and on behalf of the
respondents. Therefore, the High Court should have
declared the proceedings 'abated' under Section 4 of the
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999
(for the sake of convenience, "Repealing Act"), which
speaks of abatement of legal proceedings and granted
relief to the appellants herein.
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
341
Dalsukhbhai Bachubhai Satasia & Others v. State of Gujarat & Others
4.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted as follows:
4.1 At the outset, while arguing before the learned Single Judge
of the Gujarat High Court, the appellants conceded all claims,
except the prayer to direct the Competent Authority-II to issue
necessary NOCs for the purpose of getting the registered
sale deed that was withheld by the Joint Sub-Registrar, Surat.
Therefore, the High Court was constrained to not consider
the challenge to the order dated 16.06.1989 on merits. The
High Court thus never had to consider the applicability of the
Repealing Act, the challenge to the order dated 16.06.1989,
or the claims regarding the appellants' right to receive notice
under Section 10(5). The concessions made by the appellants
cannot now be raised before this Court.
4.1.1 The appellants have no locus to challenge any order
passed since the alleged sales were made without
obtaining permission from the Competent Authority-II
and were in violation of Sections 5(3) and 27 of the ULC
Act. The concerned lands were recorded in the name
of the State Government by an entry dated 22.10.1993,
well before the repeal of the ULC Act. The appellants
have challenged the order dated 16.06.1989 after almost
twenty-one years.
4.1.2 The possession claimed by the appellants traces back
to possession receipts issued by the Society, in whose
favour the land was transferred by auction dated
28.04.1981. However, this auction was cancelled by order
dated 12.10.1984, following which the registration in the
name of the Society was cancelled, and possession of the
land was restored to the original landowner. The fact that
the landowner challenged the order dated 16.06.1989
by an appeal under Section 33 of the ULC Act, shows
that possession was with the landowner.
4.1.3 It was further submitted that Section 4 of the Repealing
Act does not apply in the present case, since the
appellants had no pending proceedings under the ULC
Act before the commencement of the Repealing Act. On
24.09.1992, a final order was passed under Section 11 of
the ULC Act regarding compensation for 'excess vacant
342
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
land'. This marked the conclusion of proceedings under
the ULC Act.
4.1.4 The claim of the appellants depends solely upon the
alleged non-issuance of mandatory notice under Section
10(5) of the ULC Act. However, the legislature did not
intend that illegal possessors be provided the requisite
notice under Section 10(5). In this regard, the judgement
of this Court in C. Albert Morris vs. K. Chandrasekaran,
(2006) 1 SCC 228 was referred to.
4.1.5 Possession was restored to the landowner upon
cancellation of the auction. Therefore, the subsequent
sale deed executed in favour of the appellants was in
violation of Section 5(3) of the ULC Act. If a right is borne
out of an act that does not have legal sanction, such a
right may exist, but is not enforceable. Therefore, the
appellants cannot contend that they had an enforceable
right to receive notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act.
Points for consideration:
5.
The following points would arise for our consideration:
(i)
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the Writ
Petitions by not applying Section 4 of the Repealing Act and
thereby not granting relief to the appellants herein.
(ii)
What Order?
6.
Section 10 of the ULC Act reads as under:
"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
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
343
Dalsukhbhai Bachubhai Satasia & Others v. State of Gujarat & Others
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 sub-section (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 sub -section (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 subsection (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 sub-section (3), the competent authority
may, by notice in writing, order any person who may be in
344
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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.
(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-
(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 a Union Territory or within the local limits of
a cantonment declared as such under section 3 of the
Cantonments Act, 1924, means that State Government."
7.
Section 10 of the ULC Act speaks of acquisition of vacant land in
excess of the ceiling limit. Once a final statement is issued under
Section 9 of the ULC Act, the same has to be served on the person
concerned by the Competent Authority which shall also issue a
notification giving the particulars of the vacant land held by such
person in excess of the ceiling limit. The said notification shall also
state that:
(i)
such vacant land is to be acquired by the concerned State
Government;
(ii)
the claims of all persons 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.
8.
The said notification has to be published in the Official Gazette of the
State concerned. The Competent Authority shall thereafter consider
the claims of the persons interested and determine the nature and
extent of such claims and pass orders accordingly. From the date of
the publication of the notification in the Official Gazette of the State
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
345
Dalsukhbhai Bachubhai Satasia & Others v. State of Gujarat & Others
as per sub-Section (1) of Section 10 of the ULC Act, the vacant
land is deemed to have been acquired by the State Government.
Also, the publication of such a notification implies a declaration that
such land shall be deemed to have vested absolutely in the State
Government free from all encumbrances with effect from the date so
specified. No person can transfer any excess vacant land specified
in the notification in any manner known to law and no person shall
alter or cause to be altered the use of such excess vacant land once
the publication of the notification under sub-Section (1) is made till
the dates specified in the declaration made under sub-Section (3)
of Section 10 of the ULC Act.
9.
On the basis of the vacant land having vested in the State Government
as per sub-Section (3) of Section 10 of the ULC Act, the Competent
Authority, by notice in writing, order any person who may be in
possession of vacant land of it to surrender or deliver possession
to the State Government or to any person duly authorised by the
State Government within thirty days of the service of the notice (vide
Section 10(5) of the ULC Act). In case, if any person refuses or fails to
comply with an order made under sub-section (5) of Section 10 of the
ULC Act, 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 and may
for that purpose use such force as may be necessary.
10. Therefore, Section 10 of the ULC Act categorically distinguishes
between the vesting of land in the State Government and taking
possession of the vested land from any person who is in possession
of the said land. The two legal consequences are distinct and have
to be borne in mind while considering the savings clause as well
as the abatement clause under Sections 3 and 4, respectively of
the Repealing Act.
11. The Explanation to Section 10 does not require any discussion for
the purpose of this case.
12. In the State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Hari Ram, (2013) 4 SCC 280 ("Hari
Ram"), a two-judge bench of this Court explained the enactment of
the ULC Act, as well as the Repealing Act, in great detail including
the history of the ULC Act. Then, this Court referred to the Statement
of Objects and Reasons of the Repealing Act, outlining as follows:
346
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
"12. Before examining the scope of sub-section (3) of
Section 10 as well as sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section
10, reference may be made to the Repeal Act, 1999 and
its object and reasons which are as follows:
Statement of Object and Reasons:
"1. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976
was passed when Proclamation of Emergency was in
operation with a laudable social objective in mind.......
Unfortunately public opinion is nearly unanimous that the
Act has failed to achieve what was expected of it. It has
on the contrary pushed up land prices to unconscionable
levels, practically brought the housing industry to a stop
and provided copious opportunities for corruption. There
is widespread clamour for removing this most potent clog
on housing.
xxx
4. The proposed repeal, along with some other incentives
and simplification of administrative procedures is expected
to revive the stagnant housing industry and provide
affordable living accommodation for those who are in
a state of underserved want and are entitled to public
assistance. The repeal will not however, affect land on
which building activity has already commenced. For that
limited purpose, exemptions granted under Section 20 of
the Act will continue to be operative. Amounts paid out by
the State Government will become refundable."
13. While the Repealing Act thus sought to put an end to the substantive
operation of the ULC Act, it contained a savings clause, which is
as follows:
"3. Savings.-(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 by
the State Government or any person duly authorised by
the State Government in this behalf or by the competent
authority;
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
347
Dalsukhbhai Bachubhai Satasia & Others v. State of Gujarat & Others
(b) the validity of any order granting exemption under subsection (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 sub-section (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 restored unless the amount paid,
if any, has been refunded to the State Government."
14. On the other hand, Section 4 of the Repealing Act provides
for abatement of proceedings pending immediately before the
commencement of the Act, and for immediate reference, is reproduced
once as under:
"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."
15. The core of the dispute at hand centers around the proper application
of Section 4 of the Repealing Act to the facts of this case. The
appellants contended that without notice being delivered to them
348
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act (since they were in actual
possession of the concerned land), possession has not been legally
transferred to the State. Therefore, the proceedings relating to
transfer of possession of the sub-units was 'pending' at the time of
commencement of the Repealing Act, resulting in their abatement
under Section 4 of the Repealing Act.
15.1 Per contra, the respondents submitted that a 'final order'
regarding compensation for the land deemed to be "excess"
and "vacant" was passed on 24.09.1992. With this order, the
proceedings concluded and hence there is no question of the
matter of possession having been 'abated' with the advent of
the Repealing Act.
16. The legal questions that arise for our consideration in the present
appeal are therefore as follows:
i)
Was the delivery of notice under Section 10(5) to the appellants
(as possessors of the concerned lands) a mandatory step,
the non-fulfilment of which would render abatement of the
proceedings in terms of Section 4 of the Repealing Act?
ii)
Despite the recording of lands in the name of the State
Government, if actual possession was not subsequently
transferred to the Government, would this render the
proceedings to abate under Section 4 of the Repealing Act?
The aforesaid questions shall be considered together.
17. In Hari Ram, this Court considered the proper meaning of the
phrases "deemed to have been acquired by the State Government"
and "vested absolutely in the State Government" in Section 10(3)
of the ULC Act. The relevant paragraphs containing this Court's
reasoning are reproduced below:
"24. The expression "deemed to have been acquired"
used as a deeming fiction under sub-section (3) of Section
10 can only mean acquisition of title or acquisition of
interests because till that time the land may be either in
the ownership of the person who held that vacant land
or to possess such land as owner or as a tenant or as
mortgagee and so on as defined under Section 2(1) of the
Act. The word "vested" has not been defined in the Act,
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
349
Dalsukhbhai Bachubhai Satasia & Others v. State of Gujarat & Others
so also the word "absolutely". What is vested absolutely
is only the land which is deemed to have acquired and
nothing more....
xxx
29. What is deemed "vesting absolutely" is that "what is
deemed to have acquired". In our view, there must be
express words of utmost clarity to persuade a court to
hold that the legislature intended to divest possession
also, since the owners or holders of the vacant land are
pitted against a statutory hypothesis....
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 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 the hands of a
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."
(underlining by us)
17.1 Therefore, the land 'vesting' with the State Government does
not connote the transfer of possession. Rather, what is 'deemed'
to have 'vested' are the aspects that have deemed i.e., by
a legal fiction to have been 'acquired', i.e., title or interests.
Possession, as explained in Hari Ram vests de jure and not
de facto. 'Acquisition' (of title or interests) does not necessarily
350
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
involve the transfer of such de facto possession. Such transfer
requires certain explicit steps to be taken, which were also
outlined by this Court in Hari Ram as follows:
"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...
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 sub-section (5) and subsection (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 the land.
Peaceful dispossession
34. Sub-section (5) of Section 10, for the first time,
speaks of "possession" which says that where any
land is vested in the State Government under sub-
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
351
Dalsukhbhai Bachubhai Satasia & Others v. State of Gujarat & Others
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 authorised by the State Government.
35.