Point of Law: plain language of sub-section (5) of Section 10 means and envisages a notice in writing in the form of an order to surrender or make over the possession to the State. Sub-Section (5) notice is not in the form of a show cause notice but in the form of an order apparently because the process of hearing the objections to such declaration of surplus land is already taken care in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 10. Once the land is vested, after dealing with such objections, in the State Government, the only activity remaining to be done is to complete the process and achieve the object of this Act, was to take over the physical possession of such declared excess land. Therefore, a notice in the form of an order was prescribed in sub-section (5) to deliver the possession within 30 days of service of the notice.

JUDGMENT :

VINEET KOTHARI, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 4.10.2016, by which the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss Special Civil Application No. 11044 of 2000 in a matter arising under provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) (Repeal) Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Repeal Act’).

2. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition in a second round of litigation by the same Appellant, where a coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 29.9.2014 set aside the earlier order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.6.2013 dismissed this earlier Special Civil Application No. 11044 of 2000 and the Division Bench set aside that order and restored the matter on the file of learned Single Judge to decide the writ petition again and in the second round of position, the learned Single Judge, by detailed order dated 4.10.2016, again dismissed the writ petition, out of which the present Letters Patent Appeal arises.

3. The facts, in nutshell, giving rise to the present litigation noted by the learned Single Judge, are reiterated hereunder for ready reference.

4. One Jethabhai Ishwarbhai was owner of certain land bearing Survey No. 369/1, Vadsar, District Vadodara, admeasuring about 1863 sq. mtrs. which was declared surplus under provisions of the ULC Act, 1976 by the Competent Authority vide order dated 29.9.1986. The said land was earlier exempted under Section 20 of the said Act, however, the said exemption was withdrawn on 5.6.1986 and under provisions of Section 10(3) of the Act, the said 1863 sq. mtrs. of land was declared excess under the said provision of the Act and was vested in the State Government. A notice under Section 10(5) of the Act was issued to the said owner on 28.11.1987 directing the owner of land to hand over the vacant possession of such surplus land admeasuring 1863 sq. mtrs. However, the same was not handed over to the State within the stipulated period of 30 days, but after a gap of about 6 years, the possession of the said excess land was taken over by the concerned authorities on 24.11.1993 by drawing a Panchnama, during which proceedings, apparently the owner of the land was not present. The 1976 Act came to be repealed in the year 1999 with effect from 30.3.1999 and Section 4 of the said Repeal Act, 1999 provided for abatement of the pending legal proceedings and it is this provision which seems to have given rise to a spate of litigation not only in this case but lot of such other cases.

5. What was intended to be wiped out by the Repeal Act of 1999, in fact, cropped up more litigation after the Repeal Act rather than under the 1976 Act itself when it lived its life for a period of about 23 years and it is now about 23 years after the Repeal, the Courts are still struggling to settle the variety of issues arising under the said Repeal Act and the case in hand is one such example.

6. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Hari Ram, (2013) 4 SCC 280 and it was sought to be contended that the proceedings abated under the Repeal Act, 1999 and therefore, the land should be handed over back to the owner of the land who now came to be represented by the Legal Representative upon the death of the original owner.

7. Another plea raised in the present writ petition by the land owner was that he moved an application for exemption from Ceiling law in terms of Section 21 of the Act of 1976, which permitted such exemption in case the surplus land was to be used for construction of dwelling units for the weaker sections of the society and upon such application, an order could be passed by the Competent Authority for not taking over the possession of the excess land and allowing it to be utilised for the construction of the dwelling units for weaker sections of the society. Such application also was filed by the Petitioner on 28.1.1988, on which a notice was is