Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2069 OF 2014 [Arising out of SLP (C) No.14690 of 2011)  

Gajanan Kamlya Patil .. Appellant

Versus

Addl. Collector & Comp.  Auth. & Ors. .. Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2070-2071 OF 2014 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.14904-14905 of 2011)  

J U D G M E N T

K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. We  are,  in  these  appeals,  concerned  with  the

question  whether  the  High  Court  was  justified  in

relegating  the  parties  to  file  Civil  Suits  to  recover  the

Page 2

2

lands covered by Survey No.54/4 and Survey No.53/3,

both admeasuring 1870 sq.  meters,  situated at  Village

Kasarwadavli,  Ghodbunder  Road,  Taluka  and  Distt.

Thane, so as to get the benefit of Urban Land (Ceiling and

Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.

3. We may, for the disposal of these appeals, refer to

the  facts  in  Civil  Appeal  arising  out  of  Special  Leave

Petition  No.14690  of  2011,  treating  the  same  as  the

leading case.   The Appellant herein was issued a notice

dated 17.2.2005 under Section 10(5) of the Urban Land

(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘ULC Act’) for

taking possession of the Appellant’s land bearing Survey

Nos.47/10 and 54/4.  It was stated in the notice that in

accordance with the notification published in Part-I, Page

No. – Konkan Division Supplementary, dated 12.12.2002,

in the Gazette of Maharashtra, the land notified had been

vested  in  the  Government  of  Maharashtra  and  that

Additional Collector and Competent Authority, Thane (for

short “Competent Authority”), had been authorized by the

Page 3

3

State  Government  to  take  possession  of  the  land  in

question,  details  of  which  had  been  published  in  the

notification under Section 10(3) and the land be handed

over or possession be given within 30 days from the date

of receipt of the notice.  Further, it was also intimated

that if the Appellant had failed to give possession of the

land,  necessary  action  would  be  taken  for  taking

possession by application of necessary force.   

4. The  Appellant,  aggrieved  by  the  above-mentioned

notice,  filed  Writ  Petition  No.1669  of  2010  before  the

Bombay High Court to quash the notice dated 17.2.2005

and  also  for  a  declaration,  inter  alia, that  the  land

bearing Survey No.54/4 admeasuring 1870 sq. meters is

in  the  physical  possession of  the Appellant  and would

continue to vest as such with the Appellant as true and

actual  owner  thereof.   The  Appellant  also  sought  a

declaration that in view of the Urban Land (Ceiling and

Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, the proposed action of the

Respondents  or  State  or  its  authorities  for  taking

Page 4

4

possession of the land be declared as null and void and

also prayed for other consequential reliefs.   

5. The High Court  after  examining  the  provisions  of

the ULC Act as well as the provisions of the Urban Land

(Ceiling  and  Regulation)  Repeal  Act,  1999,  and  also

taking note of the affidavit filed by the State Government

and  by  the  Mumbai  Metropolitan  Region  Development

Authority  (MMRDA)  noticed  that  so  far  as  Survey

No.47/10  is  concerned,  the  possession  had  not  been

taken  over  by  MMRDA.   However,  as  far  as  land  in

Survey  No.54/4  was  concerned,  after  noticing  that

possession had been taken over, the High Court disposed

of the Petition granting relief to the Appellant in respect

of  Survey  no.47/10,  but  so  far  as  Survey  No.54/4  is

concerned,  as  already  indicated,  the  Appellant  was

granted liberty to move the Civil  Court for establishing

his claim over the property in question.

Page 5

5

6. Shri  Shekhar  Naphade,  learned  senior  counsel

appearing  for  the  Appellant,  submitted  that  the  issue

raised in this case stands fully covered by the judgment

of this Court in State of UP v. Hari Ram (2013) 4 SCC

280 and that the High Court has committed a grave error

in holding that the MMRDA is in possession of the land

in Survey No.54/4 and hence the question as to whether

possession  had  been  legally  taken  or  not  has  to  be

decided by the Civil Court.  Learned senior counsel also

submitted that the State of Maharashtra has adopted the

Repeal Act, 1999 on 1.12.2007 and that Respondent No.1

had  executed  the  possession  receipt  in  favour  of

Respondent  No.3  on  2.7.2008  behind  the  back  of  the

Appellant,  without  following  the  due  process  of  law.

Learned senior counsel submitted that since possession

had not been taken in accordance with law, the Appellant

is entitled to the benefit of the Repeal Act, 1999, as was

rightly held in respect of Survey No.47/10.  

Page 6

6

7. Shri A.S. Bhasme, learned counsel appearing for the

Respondents, on the other hand contended that the High

Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the land in

question had been taken over by MMRDA and being a

disputed question of fact, the same cannot be decided by

the High Court under Section 226 of the Constitution of

India and the only remedy available to the Appellant is to

file a Civil Suit to establish his right since the dispute is

of a civil nature.   Learned counsel, therefore, prayed for

dismissal of the appeal.  

8. We may, at the outset, point out that almost all the

legal  issues  urged  before  us  stand  covered  by  the

judgment  of  the  this  Court  in  Hari  Ram  (supra).

However,  reference  to  few  facts  is  necessary  for  the

disposal  of  these  appeals.   The  Competent  Authority

published a notification dated 17.1.2000 under Section

10(1)  of  the  ULC Act  in  the  Gazette  of  Government  of

Maharashtra on 15.6.2000, wherein the land held by the

Appellant was shown as the land to be acquired by the

Page 7

7

Government  of  Maharashtra.    Following  that,  a

notification  dated  14.3.2000  under  Sub-Section  (3)  of

Section 10 of the ULC Act was published notifying the

public  that  the land shown in the  schedule  therein is

covered and the land in Survey No.54/4 as well would be

considered  to  be  acquired  by  the  Government  of

Maharashtra w.e.f. 15.6.2000 and the said land would be

vested  with  the  Government  of  Maharashtra  from  the

said date.  

9. The Competent  Authority  then issued yet  another

notification dated 2.8.2002 for information of the public

that  the  land described in the  schedule  therein  which

included the land in Survey No.54/4 as well, have been

considered  to  be  acquired  by  the  Government  of

Maharashtra w.e.f. 15.9.2002 and the said land would be

vested  for  all  purposes  free  from  all  charges  to  the

Government  of  Maharashtra  from the  said  date.   The

Competent Authority, as already indicated, issued a show

cause notice  dated 17.2.2005 under Sub-Section (5)  of

Page 8

8

Section 10 of the ULC Act to the Appellant to hand over

possession of the land in question within 30 days from

the date of receipt of that notice.  It was also indicated

therein that if the Appellant failed to give possession of

the  land,  necessary  action  would  be  taken  for  taking

possession by the application of necessary force.   

10. We  may  indicate  that  all  the  above-mentioned

proceedings were initiated under  the ULC Act, 1976, but

the said Act was repealed by the Parliament by the Urban

Land  (Ceiling  and  Regulation)  Repeal  Act,  1999  on

22.3.1999 which came into force w.e.f. 11.1.1999.  The

State  of  Maharashtra  vide  its  notification  dated

1.12.2007 adopted the Repeal Act, 1999 w.e.f. 1.12.2007.

After adoption of the Repeal Act, 1999, on 1.12.2007, the

Circle Office Balkum, Taluka & District Thane, executed

“possession  receipt”  on  2.7.2008  of  the  land  bearing

Survey No.54/4 belonging to the Appellant in favour of

the Chief Surveyor of MMRDA, pursuant to the orders of

the  Collector,  Thane  dated  1.7.2008.   No  notice,

Page 9

9

admittedly, was given to the Appellants before executing

the  possession  receipt.   In  this  case,  an  additional

affidavit  dated  29.4.2010  was  filed  by  the  Competent

Authority  stating that he could not find any document

like Panchanama or possession receipt in respect of the

land covered by Survey No.54/4 and few other  Survey

numbers.  The operative portion of the affidavit reads as

follows :-

“I  have  stated in  my affidavit  in  reply  dated 20.3.2010 that on 2.7.2008 the Circle Officer has  delivered  the  possession  of  the  land bearing Survey No.103/3 area 3890 sq. mtrs., 3/10 area 3600 sq. mtrs., 98/6 area 1708 sq. mtrs.,  53/3  area  2450  sq.  mtrs.,  54/4  area 1870 sq.  mtrs to the MMRDA. I  state  that  I have inspected my record, however, I could not find  any  document  like  panchanama  or possession receipt in respect of aforesaid lands by which its possession was obtained from the land holder under Urban Land Ceiling Act.”

11. We  have  another  affidavit  dated  2.7.2010  by  the

Principal  Secretary,  Urban  Development  Department,

Government  of  Maharashtra,  wherein  he  has

categorically  stated  that  the  possession  had  not  been

Page 10

10

handed  over  by  the  landowner  to  the  Competent

Authority.   The operative portion of the same reads as

under :-

“The records of right of the said land have been mutated in favour of  the Government on the basis of the notification issued under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act.  I say and submit that on enquiry, it is revealed that, though the notice under Section 10(5) was issued on 17.02.2005 for  handing  over  possession  of  the  surplus vacant  land,  the  possession  of  land  has  not been handed over by concerned landowner to the  Competent  Authority  or  to  his representative.”

The Affidavit also further reads as under :-

“Therefore, Government was under impression that since the land has been vested into the Government  as  per  the  notification  under Section  10(3)  dated  02.08.2002,  the Government  has  every  right  to  use  the  said land for  public purpose.    I  say that,  in the aforesaid background, the decision was taken to  allot  the  land  to  Mumbai  Metropolitan Region Development Authority, and therefore, as per the directions of  the Government and subsequent directions of Collector, Thane, the Circle  Officer,  Balukm,  Distt.  Thane  handed over the possession of the surplus land to the Mumbai  Metropolitan  Region  Development Authority on 02.07.2008.”

Page 11

11

The affidavit  also  says  that  actual  possession was  not

taken over as per the provisions of  the ULC Act, 1976

before  29.11.2007.   The operative  portion of  the  same

reads as under:-

“I  say  and  submit  that,  even  though  the possession of the land has been handed over to  the  Mumbai  Metropolitan  Region Development  Authority  by  Circle  Officer, Balkum on 02.07.2008, the actual possession of said surplus land was not taken over as per the  provisions  of  the  ULC  Act,  1976  before 29.11.2007.”

12. We may indicate, apart from the affidavits filed by

the officials in this case,  no other  document has been

made available either before the High Court or before this

Court, either showing that the Appellant had voluntarily

surrendered or the Respondents had taken peaceful or

forcible possession of the lands.   In  Hari Ram (supra)

this  Court  examined  the  meaning  and  context  of

Sub-sections (3) to (6) of Section 10 of the ULC Act and

held as follows :

“30. Vacant  land,  it  may  be  noted,  is  not actually  acquired  but  deemed  to  have  been

Page 12

12

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.

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.  (1977 (1) SCC 155), 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 meanings and

Page 13

13

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.  Kalyan  (2000 (8) SCC 99) 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.  Charlton (1878)  4  QBD  104  (CA): 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 authorisation cannot  however  but  be  termed  to  be  a contingent  event.  To  ‘vest’,  cannot  be termed to be an executory 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  sub-section  (5)  and sub-section (6) of  Section 10, let us examine the meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the  Act,  which  says  that  during  the  period commencing on the date of publication under

Page 14

14

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-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. If de facto possession has already passed on  to  the  State  Government  by  the  two deeming  provisions  under  sub-section  (3)  of Section 10, there is no necessity of using the expression “where  any land is  vested”  under sub-section (5) of Section 10. Surrendering or transfer of possession under sub-section (3) of Section 10 can be voluntary so that the person

Page 15

15

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)  of Section 10 to surrender or deliver possession. Sub-section  (5)  of  Section  10  visualises  a situation  of  surrendering  and  delivering possession, peacefully while sub-section (6) of Section 10 contemplates a situation of forceful dispossession.

Forceful dispossession

36. The Act provides for forceful dispossession but  only  when  a  person  refuses  or  fails  to comply with an order under sub-section (5) of Section 10. Sub-section (6) of Section 10 again speaks  of  “possession”  which  says,  if  any person refuses or fails to comply with the order made  under  sub-section  (5),  the  competent authority  may take  possession of  the  vacant land to be given to the State Government and for that purpose, force—as may be necessary— can  be  used.  Sub-section  (6),  therefore, contemplates a situation of a person refusing or  fails  to  comply  with  the  order  under sub-section  (5),  in  the  event  of  which  the competent  authority  may take  possession by use of force. Forcible dispossession of the land, therefore,  is  being  resorted  to  only  in  a situation which falls under sub-section (6) and not  under  sub-section  (5)  of  Section  10. Sub-sections (5) and (6), therefore, take care of both  the  situations  i.e.  taking  possession by giving notice, that is, “peaceful dispossession” and on failure to surrender or give delivery of possession under Section 10(5), then “forceful

Page 16

16

dispossession” under sub-section (6) of Section 10.

37. The  requirement  of  giving  notice  under sub-sections  (5)  and  (6)  of  Section  10  is mandatory. Though the word “may” has been used  therein,  the  word  “may”  in  both  the sub-sections has to be understood as “shall” because  a  court  charged  with  the  task  of enforcing  the  statute  needs  to  decide  the consequences that the legislature intended to follow  from  failure  to  implement  the requirement.  Effect  of  non-issue  of  notice under  sub-section  (5)  or  sub-section  (6)  of Section  11  is  that  it  might  result  in  the landholder being dispossessed without notice, therefore,  the word “may” has  to  be read as “shall”.”

13. We  have,  therefore,  clearly  indicated  that  it  was

always open to the authorities to take forcible possession

and, in fact, in the notice issued under Section 10(5) of

the ULC Act, it was stated that if the possession had not

been  surrendered,  possession  would  be  taken  by

application  of  necessary  force.    For  taking  forcible

possession,  certain  procedures  had  to  be  followed.

Respondents  have  no  case  that  such  procedures  were

followed  and  forcible  possession  was  taken.   Further,

Page 17

17

there is nothing to show that the Respondents had taken

peaceful possession, nor there is anything to show that

the  Appellants  had  given  voluntary  possession.  Facts

would clearly indicate that only  de jure  possession had

been  taken  by  the  Respondents  and  not  de  facto

possession before coming into force of the repeal of the

Act.    Since  there  is  nothing  to  show  that  de  facto

possession had been taken from the Appellants prior to

the  execution  of  the  possession  receipt  in  favour  of

MRDA, it  cannot hold on to the lands in question, which

are  legally  owned  and  possessed  by  the  Appellants.

Consequently,  we are inclined to allow this appeal and

quash the notice dated 17.2.2005 and subsequent action

taken therein in view of the repeal of the ULC Act.  The

above reasoning would apply in respect of other appeals

as  well  and  all  proceedings  initiated  against  the

Appellants, therefore, would stand quashed.  

 14. The Appeals are,  accordingly,  allowed.   However,

there shall be no order as to costs.

Page 18

18

……………………………..J.      (K. S. Radhakrishnan)

……………………………..J.     (Vikramajit Sen)

New Delhi, February 14, 2014.