IMPORT POINT
In absence of transfer of possession either voluntarily or forcibly before repeal of the Act, the land holder remains in possession.

JUDGMENT : -

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 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 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 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.

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 en