The court emphasized the importance of actual possession of land and the consequences of attempts to manipulate records by government officials.

The petitioner herein claiming herself to be the owner of the land measuring to an extent of 60 cents in Sy.No.152/2 situate in Padavu village, Mangaluru Taluk, has come up in this writ petition impugning the endorsement bearing No.C.Dis/ULC/CR/37/2015-16:105240-D-3 dated 28.10.2015 (Annexure ‘A’ to the petition) issued by the first respondent – Deputy Commissioner/the Competent Authority (Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation).

2. The brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition are as under:

2.1 Petitioner herein is said to be the granddaughter of one Smt.Lalitha @ Seetha Bai, the erstwhile owner of land bearing Sy.No.152/2, which totally measured 01 Acre 35 cents, and several other properties. After coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, ‘the ULC Act, 1976’), the petitioner’s grandmother, Smt. Lalitha @ Seetha Bai, filed a statement under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act, 1976, before the first respondent giving particulars about the vacant lands held by her in excess of the ceiling limit prescribed under the said Act. The first respondent after conducting enquiry, prepared a draft statement under Section 8(1) of the ULC Act, 1976, indicating that the land measuring to an extent of 60 cents in Sy. No.152/2A was found to be in excess of the ceiling limit permissible under the said Act. The draft statement along with notice dated 19.05.1984 was issued to the land owner calling upon her to file objections, if any, within 30 days therefrom. The same was served on her on 04.06.1984. Smt. Lalitha @ Seetha Bai filed her objections. The first respondent after considering the objections, passed an order under Section 8(4) of the said Act observing that Smt. Lalitha @ Seetha Bai was holding land measuring to an extent of 60 cents in Sy. No.152/2A in excess of the ceiling limit permissible under the ULC Act, 1976, and thereafter, prepared a final statement under Section 9 of the said Act. The final statement along with the notice dated 07.06.1986 was served on the land owner on 15.07.1986. Subsequently, the first respondent issued notification dated 26.08.1986 under Section 10(1) of the ULC Act, 1976, which was published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 11.09.1986, giving particulars of the vacant land measuring 60 cents in Sy. No.152/2 held by Smt. Lalitha @ Seetha Bai in excess of the ceiling limit. It is stated that since no claim of any interested person in the said vacant land was received by the first respondent within the period of 30 days from 26.08.1986, it issued notification dated 29.10.1987 under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act, 1976, which was published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 03.12.1987 declaring that the excess land referred to in the notification published under Section 10(1) of the ULC Act, 1976, was deemed to have been acquired by the State Government with effect from 20.12.1987. Pursuant to the said notification, the name of the ‘Government’ was entered in respect of the said excess land in the revenue records. Notice dated 01.02.1988 was issued to the land owner, Smt. Lalitha @ Seetha Bai, represented by her special attorney holder, Sri Vasudeva Kamath, intimating her that physical possession of the excess land would be taken on 12.02.1988. On the said day, possession of the land in question was taken over by the Government from the land owner. The first respondent – competent Authority, by its order bearing No.ULC:S:375:76- 77 dated 23.03.1994, determined the compensation of Rs.4,822/- in respect of the said excess land and passed the award.

2.2 During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings under the Urban Land (Celing and Regulation) Act, 1976, the said Act came to be repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Repeal Act, 1999’), which was adopted by the State of Karnataka with effect from 17.09.1999.

2.3 The petitioner claiming to be the owner of the said excess land by virtue of unregistered Will dated 2