IMPORTANT POINTS
Taking possession of surplus land without notice and vesting of the same is an irregularity which, if challenged within reasonable time, could be cured.
Merely because writ petition on basis of purchase deeds was dismissed it cannot be said that possession of the land was taken over by State.
Land owners not challenging vesting on ground of absence of notice for long time, also not establishing their possession during relevant time, and third party rights created by allotment and those persons not imopleaded; vesting cannot be disturbed.

Headnote:(a) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1999 – Section 3 r/w section 10(3), (5) and (6), Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – Land vests u/s 10(3) on taking possession u/s 10(6) after notice to landowners u/s 10(5) – Such vesting saved by section 3 of Repeal Act – State asserting taking over possession in 1991 – However no notice issued u/s 10(5) – Dispossession of landowners for taking possession without notice – No dispossession in eye of law – Section 3 not attracted. (Para 10, 11)
       (b) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – Section 10(3), (5) and (6) – Vesting u/s 10(3) without notice u/s 10(5) – Even if challenge raised within reasonable time and dispossession annulled, notice could be served and landowner dispossessed – Secondly, possession taken by State in 1991 – Respondent not challenging the same on ground of non-compliance of section 10(5) for a long time till passing of Repeal Act – Deemed to have waived his right to challenge. (Para 11, 12)
       (2013) 4 SCC 280; (2013) 11 SCC 486 – Distinguished
       (c) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – Section 10(3), (5) and (6) – State asserting taking over possession in 1991 – Respondents nor able to establish their possession between 1991 and 2001 – Third party rights already created on surplus land by allotting the same to eligible persons – These persons not impleaded – Appeal liable to be rejected. (Para 16, 17)
       Facts of the case:
       Late Bhabadeb Sarma, father of the respondents, was recorded as a Pattadar of a plot of land measuring 73.26 Ares equivalent to 1 Bigha, 4 Kathas and 16 Lachas, covered by K.P. Patta No.493 (old)/594 (new) in Dag No.1008(old) of Sahar Ulubari, in Mouza Ulubari, Guwahati.
       With the adoption of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 by the State of Assam, the said Shri Bhabadev Sarma submitted returns under Section 6 of the said Act on 19th October, 1976.
       A draft statement under Section 8(3) was served upon the owner in regard to the land which was, according to the draft statement, beyond the ceiling limit of 2000 sq. meters permissible under the Act. A final statement under Section 9 was prepared and published on 3rd September, 1982 declaring an area measuring 7981.48 Sq. meters to be in excess of the permissible limit. A notification dated 16th May, 1984 under Section 10(1) followed declaring the vacant land aforementioned to be in excess of the ceiling limit.
       In November 1984, the owner sold a major portion of the land in question to Mr. Kamala Kanta Ozah and five others in terms of different instruments of sale executed in their favour. A notification under Section 10(3) was published on 1st January, 1987 and the land in question declared Ceiling Surplus Government land. A part of the said land was on that basis allotted in favour of 8 families in terms of land policy of the Government while the remaining area measuring 8.03 Ares was retained by the Government. The land record was also corrected by deleting the name of owner Bhabadeb Sarma as the Pattadar. No land revenue was collected from the erstwhile owners post vesting of the land in the State under Section 10(3) of the Act.
       The appellant's appeal against the order of vesting and Writ Petition challenging the proceedings filed before the High Court failed. Special leave petition filed against the said order too failed and was dismissed.
       The Government of Assam allotted an extent of 8.03 Acre to Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority (GMDA) for construction of an office building for the said authority.
       In the meantime on 12th December, 2003 the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act was notified which came into force in the State of Assam w.e.f. 6th August, 2003. Possession of the allotted land was handed over to GMDA on 25th December, 2003 which action too came under challenge at the instance of the respondents in Writ Petition, who stepped into the shoes of Bhabadeb Sarma upon his death on 3rd October, 1997. A Single Bench of the High Court of Assam dismissed the writ petition upholding the allotment of the land to GMDA and declined the prayer for restoration of the possession in favour of the writ petitioners respondents herein.
       The respondents filed Writ Appeal which was allowed by a Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench while setting aside the order passed by the Single Bench directed restoration of possession of the disputed parcel of land to the respondents.
       Finding of the Court:
       Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
       Result: Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

T.S. THAKUR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals by special leave are directed against an order dated 21st September, 2010 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Assam at Guahati whereby Writ Appeal No.202 of 2007 filed by the respondents herein has been allowed, order dated 13th April, 2007 passed by a learned Single Judge of that Court set aside and the respondents held entitled to restoration of the possession of the land in dispute.

3. Late Bhabadeb Sarma, father of the respondents, was recorded as a Pattadar of a plot of land measuring 73.26 Ares equivalent to 1 Bigha, 4 Kathas and 16 Lachas, covered by K.P. Patta No.493 (old)/594 (new) in Dag No.1008(old) of Sahar Ulubari, in Mouza Ulubari, Guahati. With the adoption of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 by the State of Assam, the said Shri Bhabadev Sarma submitted returns under Section 6 of the said Act on 19th October, 1976. In Urban Land Ceiling Case No.343 of 1976 initiated by the District Collector against the said Shri Sarma, a draft statement under Section 8(3) was served upon the owner in regard to the land aforementioned which was, according to the draft statement, beyond the ceiling limit of 2000 sq. meters permissible under the Act. Upon consideration of the objections raised by the owner to the said draft statement, a final statement under Section 9 was prepared and published on 3rd September, 1982 declaring an area measuring 7981.48 Sq. meters to be in excess of the permissible limit. A notification dated 16th May, 1984 under Section 10(1) followed declaring the vacant land aforementioned to be in excess of the ceiling limit.

4. In November 1984, the owner appears to have sold a major portion of the land in question to Mr. Kamala Kanta Ozah and five others in terms of different instruments of sale executed in their favour. A notification under Section 10(3) was published on 1st January, 1987 and the land in question declared Ceiling Surplus Government land. A part of the said land was on that basis allotted in favour of 8 families in terms of land policy of the Government while the remaining area measuring 8.03 Ares was retained by the Government. It is not in dispute that the land record was also corrected by deleting the name of owner Bhabadeb Sarma as the Pattadar. It is also not in dispute that no land revenue was collected from the erstwhile owners post vesting of the land in the State under Section 10(3) of the Act.

5. The appellant's case is that possession of the entire surplus land was taken over by the Revenue Authority on 7th December, 1992. This did not, however, deter Kamala Kanta Ozah and others who had purchased the land either from filing an appeal against the order of vesting or challenging the proceedings in Writ Petition (Civil Writ Case No.2568 of 1992) filed before the High Court. Both these attempts made by the purchasers of the land failed with the dismissal of the appeal by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of Revenue and the dismissal of Writ Petition No.2568 of 1992 by the High Court in terms of order dated 21st May, 2002. The High Court, it is pertinent to mention not only upheld the order passed by the Collector-cum-Competent Authority but also the allotment of a substantial portion of the land in favour of 8 different families eligible for such allotment. Writ Appeal No.419 of 2002 filed by Kamala Kanta Ozah and others against the order passed by the Single Judge also came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by an order dated 20th December, 2002. Special leave petition filed against the said order too failed and was dismissed by this Court on 8th August, 2003.

6. With the challenge to the proceedings under the Act concluding in the manner indicated above, the Government of Assam by an order dated 27th November, 2003 allotted an extent of 8.03 Are to Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority (GMDA) for construction of an office building for the said authority. I

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2014 Supreme(SC) 838

Cases Referred (2)