IMPORTANT POINT
The mere vesting of land under the ULC Act does not grant the State de facto possession unless lawful possession is established; unilateral possession is insufficient for the State to retain ownership.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

SUNIL B.SHUKRE, J. - Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties and the Petitions are taken up for final disposal.

2. This is a case wherein the Petitioner claims to be the owner of a larger piece of land having area as mentioned in these Petitions, out of which the lands having area of 859.6 square meters and area of 1233 square meters respectively, were declared to be surplus lands under Sec. 10(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 [for short "ULC"] and submits that these surplus lands not having been taken into possession on or before 29/11/2007, the date from which the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 [for short "Repeal Act"] came into force, by the State Government, reverted back to the original land owners by virtue of Sec. 4 of the Repeal Act, thereby entitling the Petitioner, who subsequently purchased them, to their release in its favour.

3. The State Government has, however raised some dispute regarding lapsing of the ULC proceedings and reverting of the surplus lands back to the original owners, from whom the Petitioner has subsequently purchased them, contending that there has been unilateral possession taken over of these lands by the State Government on 21/11/2006, which fact, according to the learned AGP is sufficient to say that the vesting of the subject surplus lands in the State Government is complete and irreversible.

4. The State Government in support of its aforestated stand, relies upon some observations of coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Bombay Wire Ropes Ltd & Anr vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in 2019 SCC Online Bom 264 wherein, in the facts and circumstances of that case, the Division Bench came to a conclusion that there was available on record sufficient evidence showing delivery of possession to Respondent No.4 therein. However, such are not the facts here as it is an admitted fact that whatever possession of the surplus lands that was taken by the State Government officials, was unilateral and, therefore, to the fact situation of this case, the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Hari Ram (2013) 4 Supreme Court Cases 280 would apply. In this case, in paragraph 42, the Apex Court has held as under:

"42. The mere vesting of the land under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 10 would not confer any right on the State Government to have de facto possession of the vacant land unless there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land before 18/3/1999. The State has to establish that there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land or surrender and delivery of peaceful possession under sub-sec. (5) of Sec. 10 or forceful dispossession under sub-sec. (6) of Sec. 10. On failure to establish any of those situations, the landowner or holder can claim the benefit of Sec. 4 of the Repeal Act. The State Government in this appeal could not establish any of those situations and hence the High Court is right in holding that the respondent is entitled to get the benefit of Sec. 4 of the Repeal Act."

5. It would be clear from the above referred observations that mere vesting of the land under Sec. 10(3) of the ULC Act would not confer any right on the government to have de facto possession of the vacant land unless there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land before 18/3/1999. The State has to establish that there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land or surrender and delivery of peaceful possession under Sub-Sec. (5) of Sec. 10 or forcible dispossession under sub-sec. (6) of Sec. 10 of the ULC Act.

6. In the instant case, admittedly, the possession that was taken by the State Government was unilateral and it was neither a possession which was taken in terms of Sec. 10(5) nor a possession taken in terms of Sec. 10(6) of the ULC Act and hence, it was not a possession taken at all. The moment it is established that the possession of the surplus lands has not been taken over