Page 1

1

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5102  of 2016 (Arising from the SLP(Civil) No.7161 of 2011)

State of U.P. and Ors.          ….Appellants

Versus

Surendra Pratap and Ors.   …. Respondents

J U D G M E N T  

Uday U. Lalit, J.

1. Delay condoned.  Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment

and order dated 12.11.2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad  allowing  Writ  Petition  No.46843  of  2005  preferred  by

respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein.

Page 2

2

3. After  the  enactment  of  the  Urban  Land  (Ceiling  and

Regulation) Act,  1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) imposing

ceiling on vacant land in urban agglomerations, one Khairati who was

Bhumidhar  of  Plot  Nos.222 and 144 measuring area  25232.13 Sq.

Meters at Village Rali Chauhan, Pargana, Tehsil  & District Meerut,

submitted a statement u/s 6 of the Act.  On the basis of said statement,

the Competent Authority after conducting necessary enquiry prepared

a draft statement u/s 8(3) of the Act which was sent to the land holder

inviting objections, if any.  In due course, the Competent Authority

proceeded  to  pass  an  order  u/s  8(4)  of  the  Act  on  23.05.1983

confirming the draft statement declaring 25232.13 sq.mtrs. of land of

said Khairati at Village – Rali Chauhan, Meerut as surplus land.  No

appeal was preferred against the order confirming the draft statement.

4. Thereafter, Notice u/s 9 of the Act along with final statement

was issued by the Competent Authority which was received by the

legal heirs of said Khairati.  Later, notification u/s 10(1) of the Act

was published in the Gazette on 14.12.1985.  This was followed by

notification u/s 10(3) of the Act which was published in the Official

Gazette on 29.04.1986,  upon publication of which, the surplus vacant

Page 3

3

land  stood  vested  with  the  State  Government  free  from  all

encumbrances.  

5. The  Competent  Authority  vide  notice  dated  31.03.1993  u/s

10(5) of the Act directed the land holders to hand over possession of

the land in question to the Collector within 30 days of the receipt of

the notice.  Further, the Tehsildar, Meerut was also directed to take

possession of the land.  It appears that respondent No.1 who claimed

to  have  purchased  the  land  from  the  heirs  of  said  Khairati  on

03.10.1986 i.e. after the publication of notification u/s 10(3) of the

Act,  preferred  objections  before  the  competent  Authority  on

07.05.1994 against the issuance of notice u/s 10(5) of the Act.

6. On 20.08.1994, possession of the surplus vacant land was taken

by Land Records Inspector, Meerut on behalf of the Tehsildar from

respondent  No.2  herein  through  its  proprietor  namely  respondent

No.1.   Thereafter,  the  Competent  Authority  vide  its  order  dated

30.06.1995  dismissed  the  objections  preferred  by  respondent  No.1

against the issuance of notice u/s 10(5) of the Act.  While dismissing

the objections, it was observed that the possession of the surplus land

in question was already taken by the Tehsildar, Meerut on 20.08.1994.

Page 4

4

7. After enactment of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)

Repeal  Act,  1999  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  Repeal  Act),  the

respondent Nos.1 and 2 preferred Writ Petition No.46843 of 2005 in

the High Court contending inter-alia that they were still in possession

of the land in question and entitled to the benefit under the Repeal

Act.  The High Court accepted the contention and allowed their Writ

Petition by its  order dated 18.05.2010. The High Court was of  the

view  that  the  expression  “possession”  used  in  clause  (a)  of

sub-Section (2) of Section (3) of the Repeal Act meant actual physical

possession and that there was nothing on record to indicate that actual

physical possession was taken by the Competent Authority.   

8. We have heard Mr. Irshad Ahmad, learned Additional Advocate

General for the State in support of the appeal and Mr. Aarohi Bhalla,

learned Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.  The record indicates

that  notification  u/s  10(3)  of  the  Act  was  published in  the  official

gazette on 29.04.1986 and an appropriate notice u/s 10(5) of the Act

was issued by the Competent Authority on 31.03.1993.  These aspects

of the matter are not disputed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 but in their

submission, despite such notice u/s 10(5) of the Act, the possession

was never taken over. The factum about taking over the possession

Page 5

5

finds  clear  mention  in  the  possession  certificate  dated  20.08.1994.

Further,  the  objections  preferred  by  respondent  Nos.1  and  2  were

dismissed vide order dated 30.06.1995 which order also records the

fact  that  possession  of  the  land  already  stood  taken  over.   In  the

premises, all requisite actions contemplated under the Act were taken

in accordance with law well before the enactment of the Repeal Act

and the surplus vacant land stood vested with the State Government of

which the possession was also taken over.  The Writ Petition preferred

in the year 2005, therefore, had no stateable claim and the High Court

was completely in  error  in  accepting the  submissions  advanced on

behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.

9. Moreover, in Civil Appeal Nos. 369-370 of 2016 (State of U.P.

and Ors. v. Adarsh Seva Sahakari Ltd.) decided on 19.01.2016, this

Court has observed that after the vesting of the surplus land with the

State Government u/s 10(5) of the Act, if any transfer of the property

in question is effected, such transfer would be void ab initio and the

transferee would not be entitled to challenge the alleged inaction on

part of the State Government or the Competent Authority in not taking

possession in compliance with the provisions u/s 10(5) of the Act.

Page 6

6

10. In  the  aforesaid  circumstances,  the  view  taken  by  the  High

Court in the instant case is completely unsustainable.  This appeal is,

therefore, allowed and the Writ Petition preferred by the respondent

Nos.1 and 2 herein stands dismissed with costs.  

…………………..CJI.  (T. S. Thakur)

………………..……J. (Uday Umesh Lalit)

New Delhi, May 13, 2016